Content
36%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 contains a genuinely specified protocol, but it is buried inside a monolithic Lean 4 formalization that consumes the vast majority of the token budget while duplicating the prose rules, and no worked example shows what a round, probe, or trace actually looks like. An executor must reverse-engineer the operational sequence from type-theoretic definitions.
Suggestions
Move the Lean formalization to a reference file (e.g. references/formal-model.md) and keep only the FLOW summary, morphism outline, and markdown rules in SKILL.md — this would address both the conciseness padding and the inlined-content progressive-disclosure problem at once.
Add one worked example round: a sample target, the three derived entry labels, a concrete scenario probe with its Qc/Qs form, and the resulting trace — giving executors copy-adaptable concrete patterns instead of abstract type definitions.
Restate the operational sequence as numbered plain-language steps with explicit checkpoints (entry selection → probe → adjudication → coverage → closure, including what happens on a missed or contradicting answer), so the workflow doesn't require decoding settle/gateFor/advance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~680 lines dominated by a ~630-line Lean 4 formalization whose dense, self-referential notation restates what the prose Rules section already encodes (e.g. "Task priority and answer handling are defined below, in settle and advance respectively") — noticeably padded relative to what a working protocol needs, though the outer markdown sections are reasonably tight and it doesn't explain concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance exists — "Derive up to three first-turn labels", the named intents (Orientation, Rationale, Impact, Approval, Transfer), "cite concrete locations in the target — file and line where it is code", the Intensity table, and the pointer to references/round-composition.md — but there are no worked examples of an entry label, probe, or round, and actual execution depends on decoding Lean definitions, leaving the guidance incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present (the FLOW comment "Orient silently → present intent-scented entries and route adequacy → Stop. Fuse the next utterance → ... → advance → present the resulting Round", plus the grounding Op list), but the real transition logic lives in opaque Lean functions (settle, gateFor, advance) with no plain-language numbered steps, checkpoints, or error-recovery loops an executor can follow — many gaps, steps poorly defined. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single bundle reference (references/round-composition.md, verified to exist) is well-signaled and one level deep ("Read references/round-composition.md before composing when..."), and the body has headers, a table, and bullets — but the ~630-line Lean formalization is exactly the content that belongs in a separate reference file and is inlined monolithically, so organization is only partial. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |