Content
52%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 has a sound architecture — a clear five-step workflow, explicit escalation constraints, and genuinely well-structured one-level-deep bundle references — but it is heavily padded with repeated enumerations and its steps remain abstract, delegating nearly all executable detail to the bundle files. Tightening the repetition and inlining a small concrete example would lift both conciseness and actionability.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the repeated legal-term enumerations (they appear nearly verbatim in the intro, Constraints, and Workflow steps 2 and 5); state the escalation list once and reference it thereafter.
Trim the Scope bullets, which restate the opening paragraphs, and push the detailed in-scope inventory into the chapters-summary reference.
Inline one short concrete example — e.g. a sample questionnaire answer with an evidence reference, or a filled-in row of the report template — so step 4's 'map concerns to engineering actions' is executable rather than abstract.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The legal-term enumeration ('defectiveness, compensable damage, causal link, economic-operator responsibility, jurisdiction, limitation periods, development-risk defences, disclosure duties') is repeated nearly verbatim in the intro, Constraints, Workflow step 2, and step 5, and the Scope bullets restate the opening paragraphs — noticeably verbose with several padded sections. It avoids a 1 only because it does not explain concepts Claude already knows; the padding is domain-specific repetition. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance exists in the form of explicit file paths, a fixed reading order, and an evidence-or-'Unknown' recording rule, but the steps themselves are abstract inventories ('Map Product Liability Directive concerns to engineering actions: ...') with no inline example of a control, evidence record, or report excerpt — the executable detail is entirely deferred to the bundle files. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five Workflow steps are clearly sequenced with a start gate ('Do not start implementation review until the chapters summary... are understood') and the questionnaire checkpoint of recording each answer with an evidence reference or 'Unknown'. It falls short of 5 because there is no feedback or error-recovery loop after the questionnaire or report, and the final validation steps are only named, not specified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md acts as an overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to four real bundle files (chapters summary, engineering examples, questionnaire, report template), each linked with its purpose stated. Minor gaps: the same links are duplicated at the top and bottom of the body, and long inline scope/constraint enumerations would fit better in the references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |