Content
67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured with actionable tool examples and a useful skepticism-validation step, but it is somewhat verbose and references a bundle path that is not present in the skill directory.
Suggestions
Tighten the BE SKEPTICAL section into a compact table or one line per test to reduce token cost, the largest conciseness drag.
De-duplicate the 'When This Applies' trigger list against the description, or replace it with a pointer to avoid repeating the same phrases.
Either add the referenced 'using-glean/reference/' file to the bundle or correct the path so the progressive-disclosure pointer resolves.
Add an explicit numbered workflow (query → validate → format) so the sequence and validation checkpoint are unambiguous rather than implied.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The BE SKEPTICAL section is verbose (four tests each with three ✅/⚠️/❌ lines) and the 'When This Applies' trigger list repeats phrases already in the description; both could be tightened without losing clarity. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready tool invocations across common cases (chat, employee_search, search with app/updated params) plus output templates, with only minor gaps around parameter completeness. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An implicit sequence (determine project → query → validate via BE SKEPTICAL → format output) with a validation checkpoint and an 'if unsure, mark Status Unknown' fallback; not a numbered list and no retry loop, but checkpoints are present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and the using-glean reference is clearly signaled at one level deep, but the referenced path 'using-glean/reference/' does not resolve to any file in the provided bundle, a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |