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 skill encodes an unusually rigorous, self-consistent dialogue contract, and its one reference file is well signaled, but the delivery works against it: a ~340-line Lean formal block dominates the file at massive token cost, and the executable guidance (what a surface actually looks like) is never demonstrated. The prose sections that remain are terse and specific, so the deficit is structural placement and verbosity rather than vagueness.
Suggestions
Move the Lean formal block to a reference file (e.g., references/contract.md), keeping in SKILL.md only the FLOW summary, the gate rules, and the surface composition requirements — the formal encoding is occasion-bound verification material, not overview content.
Add one worked example of a surface round (seed utterance → surfaced coordinates with sources → answer slots) so the abstract record/focus rules become visibly actionable; this is the single highest-leverage fix for both actionability and workflow clarity.
Compress the axiom doc comments: rules like StandingSupported are restated across the Definition, the axiom comment, and TOOL GROUNDING; state each judgment rule once in plain prose beside the axiom it governs.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body spends ~340 of its ~390 lines on a Lean 4 formal block whose content — origin grounding rules, a record structure, a recursive dialogue loop — could be stated in a small fraction of the tokens; each axiom's doc comment re-explains judgment rules at length (e.g., the multi-paragraph StandingSupported comment). This matches 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' rather than a 3, because the padding is structural: the entire formal encoding is an expensive restatement of prose rules, not a few local over-explanations. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There is real concrete guidance — TOOL GROUNDING's `surface` entry specifies what to present (one-sentence read-back, per-coordinate sources, contrary grounds before answer slots), the Intensity table maps situations to formats, and round-composition.md carries concrete placement rules. But it is not a 4: no worked example of an actual surface or dialogue round exists anywhere, and the Protocol section delegates execution by pointer ("Present what TOOL GROUNDING's `surface` entry names"), leaving the model to reconstruct behavior from a dense formal block. It is above a 2 because the surface entry's composition rules are specific enough to act on. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The FLOW comment lays out a real sequence — surface, fuse each utterance, check withdrawal/resolution gates, then converge or continue — and the Morphism section orders the phases. It is not a 4 because the sequence lives inside a Lean code block that the reader must decode, the Phase Transitions section defines steps by cross-reference, and there are no explicit checkpoints (e.g., what to do when a surface is misunderstood or a run stalls); it is above a 2 because the gates and exit conditions are enumerated unambiguously. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single reference, references/round-composition.md, is genuinely well signaled — the body names it with explicit load conditions ("Read ... before composing when a term must remain stable...") and it is one level deep. But the structure as a whole matches 'content that should be separate is inline': the ~340-line formal contract is a monolithic inlined block that would more naturally live in a reference file, and only one reference exists to absorb the occasion-bound material, so organization is only partly realized. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |