Content
75%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 well-organized, actionable guide: a tool roster, an intent-to-tool decision map, three sequenced workflows with explicit confirmation checkpoints for destructive operations, and sound rationale for the delete defaults. It falls just short of top marks on conciseness (filler in the Key Decisions section) and error-recovery guidance, and its illustrative call style is a step short of copy-paste ready.
Suggestions
Trim the Key Decisions prose (drop the email analogy and 'Users change their minds all the time') and keep the boardId warning to its concrete failure consequences — the same caution in half the tokens.
Show one concrete end-to-end call example with realistic values (e.g. BoardMutate(action: "create", title: "Auth flow", projectId: "p_123") → boardId: "b_456") so the invocation format is unambiguous.
Add a brief failure-handling note to the workflows (what to do when BoardMutate returns an error or the boardId is not found) to close the feedback-loop gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The tool roster table, intent-mapping block, and workflows are lean and assume competence, but the Key Decisions prose has trimmable filler ("Users change their minds all the time", the confirming-recipients-before-email analogy) alongside the domain-critical boardId warning. Not 5 because minor over-explanation remains; not 3 because padding is localized rather than a pattern. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, parameterized tool calls (BoardMutate action: create with title/projectId, BoardQuery mode: list with unboundOnly: true) plus the deferred-tool activation step make guidance mostly executable; not 5 because the calls are illustrative pseudo-invocations rather than exact copy-paste payloads (e.g. title: "...") and no real example call is shown end-to-end. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Three numbered workflows with explicit human-in-the-loop checkpoints (report and propose before mutating, list-and-confirm before delete/hard-delete/clear-unbound) satisfy the destructive-operation validation requirement; not 5 because there are no error-recovery feedback loops (e.g. what to do when a call fails), and not 3 because validation is explicit, not implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-sectioned (roster, intent map, workflows, decisions) with no buried references, but at ~90 lines with no bundle files it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception, and the Key Decisions rationale prose is the kind of content that could be trimmed or split. Not 5 because structure could be tighter for its length; not 3 because organization is genuinely good with nothing clearly misplaced. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |