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 body is a tight, well-structured instruction skill with concrete heuristics and a clear workflow; its main gap is the absence of a full worked example that would make the guidance fully copy-ready.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example (subject + body) showing the principles applied end-to-end to lift actionability.
Tighten the opening paragraph and any editorial phrasing in Principles to push conciseness toward fully lean.
Consider a one-line self-check in 'How to work' (e.g. 'Confirm the ask, deadline, and next step are all explicit before sending') to add a lightweight validation checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 31-line body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining generic concepts; rated 4 rather than 5 because the opening paragraph and a few principles carry light editorial framing that could be trimmed further. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance with specific do/don't examples ('Cut throat-clearing ("I hope this finds you well…")', 'not "let me know your thoughts"') and a defined output format; not a 5 because it lacks a complete worked example email to copy. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'How to work' section gives a clear 4-step sequence (goal/recipient/tone → subject → body → trim) appropriate to a simple non-destructive skill; held at 4 because steps remain slightly abstract and there are no explicit self-check points. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, and organized into clear, well-labeled sections (When to use, Principles, How to work, Output format), matching the rubric's simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |