Content
27%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 encodes a coherent but heavily over-engineered contract: a real workflow with explicit gates, buried under five restatements in Lean formalism and invented vocabulary, with no concrete example of the output it demands. Its one good structural practice — a well-signaled one-level reference — is undermined by the monolithic inline formal block.
Suggestions
Collapse the FLOW, MORPHISM, PHASE TRANSITIONS, LOOP, and CONVERGENCE restatements into one compact procedural description, and move the Lean formal block to references/ so it loads only when needed.
Add one worked example: a sample map (the graph or indented outline a person actually sees) and a short sample dialogue showing draft → gate → take → relay → handoff.
Give concrete drafting guidance in plain language — what a line of work looks like, how to mark substrate placement as inference, and how to flag deferred decisions — instead of stating these only as abstract contract properties.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~36KB body restates the same procedure at least five times (FLOW comment, MORPHISM list, PHASE TRANSITIONS, LOOP/CONVERGENCE comments, the Lean definitions, TOOL GROUNDING) in dense invented terminology; actionable content could fit in a fraction of the space, matching anchor 1's severely verbose, heavily padded profile. | 1 / 5 |
Actionability | The TOOL GROUNDING table gives per-operation instructions and the `.map` entry specifies output content ("the lines of work as a graph the host can render, each line a node with its id"), but there is no worked example, sample map, or sample dialogue — a practitioner lacks the specific steps to execute, matching anchor 2. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A genuine sequence exists (observe → draft → present map → gate → revise/take → relay → handoff) with an explicit checkpoint ("what the map got wrong, anywhere on it — or take the method... silence holds and takes nothing"), but it is expressed only through Lean formalism and idiosyncratic prose that a reader must decode, leaving clarity well short of anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single reference is real, one level deep, and clearly condition-signaled ("Read references/round-composition.md when terminology or wording must persist..."), but the ~530-line formal Lean block is inlined in SKILL.md and loaded on every invocation when it belongs in a reference file, matching anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 9 / 20 Passed |