Content
86%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 content is a lean, well-structured three-step workflow with concrete tool references and clear sequencing. Its main gap is the absence of executable code examples and explicit validation/edge-case handling.
Suggestions
Add a short example showing the exact invocation format for `get_video_comments` and `analyze_sentiment_heuristic` so guidance is copy-paste ready.
Include a validation checkpoint in the Analyze step (e.g., if fewer than ~20 comments are returned, fetch more or note low confidence).
Specify how to weight semantic understanding versus the heuristic when they disagree, to remove ambiguity in the Analyze step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient at under 20 lines with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line carries actionable guidance. Minor editorial phrasing ('true audience reaction') is negligible. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Names concrete tools (`get_video_comments`, `analyze_sentiment_heuristic`) with specific parameters ('top 20-50 comments', 'Positive/Neutral/Negative'); not 5 because tool calls are described rather than shown as executable code examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-step sequence (Fetch, Analyze, Synthesize) with concrete per-step instructions; not 5 because there are no explicit validation checkpoints or edge-case handling (e.g., too few comments fetched). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and no bundle files present; the body is well-organized into Objective, Execution Steps, and Next Actions sections, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |