Content
78%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 tight, actionable, well-sequenced workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and clean organization; its only gaps are thin error-recovery guidance and a couple of underspecified parameters.
Suggestions
Add a brief recovery path for partial_failure and failed generation states (e.g., whether to retry, reduce count, or report to the user).
Clarify what 'controls' means in generate_product_photos or point to where its valid values are defined.
Tighten or remove the backend-pipeline context sentence to push conciseness toward a 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with no padding or basic-concept explanations; one mild context sentence about the backend pipeline could be trimmed, keeping it just short of a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete MCP tool names and explicit parameters (product, category, controls, count, quality) give mostly executable guidance, with minor gaps such as partial_failure recovery and the meaning of 'controls'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence includes explicit checkpoints (confirm before spending, poll until terminal status, no duplicate submissions), but error-recovery handling for partial_failure/failed is not detailed. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections (Prerequisite, Workflow, Tool map, Rules), meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |