Content
42%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 defines an unusually rigorous protocol — a Lean 4 contract with explicit feedback loops (re-observation after writes, a nothing-open completion gate, unrepaired-write reporting) and one excellent concrete example of the user-facing sheet — but it buries all of it in a heavily redundant, ~450-line formal block inlined in SKILL.md, with only one small offloaded reference. An executor can extract the workflow, but at a large token cost and with substantial interpretation burden.
Suggestions
Move the full Lean contract into a reference file (e.g. references/contract.md) and keep in SKILL.md only the FLOW summary, the sheet example, the activation conditions, and the Rules — the contract is reference material, not first-load content.
De-duplicate the repeated invariants: 'afresh on every pass', 'what this run may write', and 'the context only grows' each appear in FLOW, MORPHISM, the axiom doc comments, and TOOL GROUNDING; state each once and cross-reference.
Add one or two more worked examples like the nightly-report sheet (e.g. an artifact from another session, a discard-with-replacement case) to ground the abstract operations (observe/judge/perform/resolve) in executable form.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~450-line Lean block restates a handful of ideas many times — 'made afresh on every pass', 'the context only grows', and 'what this run may write' each recur across FLOW, MORPHISM, the axioms, and TOOL GROUNDING — and the prose around it ('Epharmoge (ἐφαρμογή): A dialogical act of checking...') is heavily padded relative to what an executor needs. Matches 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' — not 1 because it does not explain concepts Claude already knows, not 3 because the redundancy is pervasive rather than occasional. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There is one genuinely concrete artifact — the nightly-report sheet ('result `0 9 * * *` (server in UTC)', 'context "the team works in Seoul" (your message)', options a/b with consequences) plus a concrete disclosure example — but the operative guidance is an abstract formal contract ('judge afresh on every pass', 'read whole against the context as it now stands') that an executor must translate into behavior. Matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete' — not 4 because the bulk is specification rather than executable direction, not 2 because the sheet example and disclosure format are specific and usable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence exists with real feedback loops — 'pass(c): observe; perform — the relay; observe again', re-observation after writes, the `NothingOpen` gate, and explicit flagging of writes that landed 'without repairing' what they aimed at — so the destructive-operation cap is not triggered. However, the steps are distributed through dense formal prose and axioms that an executor must reconstruct into an operational sequence. Matches 'Steps listed but... checkpoints missing or implicit' in operational terms — not 4 because the dense presentation leaves the practical sequence largely implicit, not 2 because the flow and its loop are explicitly stated. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single bundle reference is real (references/round-composition.md exists), one level deep, and clearly signaled with load conditions ('Read `references/round-composition.md` before composing when a term's rendering has to hold across the session...'). But ~440 lines of formal Lean contract are inlined directly in SKILL.md — content that clearly belongs in a separate reference file — alongside section headers that do exist. Matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' — not 4 because the inlined monolith dominates, not 2 because the reference is neither buried nor nested. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |