Content
67%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.
A well-structured, actionable audit procedure with concrete decision criteria and a complete output contract. Its main weakness is token efficiency: psychological rationale, hedged epistemics, and sections like Distinction/Confidence add length without adding instructions.
Suggestions
Trim the background rationale (white-bear effect explanation, ironic-process discussion in "What to evaluate") to one sentence each — Claude knows the effect; only the operative decision rules are new information.
Condense or merge the Distinction and Confidence sections into a few lines; phrases like "each maintains its own confidence curve" and "the audit illuminates the decision and leaves the judgment with the author" restate the Purpose section without adding guidance.
Move the per-form tests and load-bearing-boundary definitions (the longest stretch of "What to evaluate") into a single reference file, keeping only the constitutive rewrite test and severity table in SKILL.md, to bring the body closer to the token budget.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The judgment criteria (rewrite test, per-form tests, boundary rules, severity table) are load-bearing, but the prose also explains background Claude already knows (the white bear effect, "the human ironic-process effect does not transfer mechanistically to language models") and carries padded qualifiers ("each maintains its own confidence curve", "the audit illuminates the decision and leaves the judgment with the author"). This is the mostly-efficient-with-unnecessary-explanation anchor, not anchor 4 where only minor trims would be needed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is mostly executable: a constitutive rewrite test, per-form checklists, a severity calibration table, and a fully specified output JSON including zero-findings handling. It falls short of anchor 5 because several decision points remain soft judgment calls ("usually `low` for human triage", "judgment-dependent rewrite preference") rather than checkable rules. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections sequence cleanly from Inputs to Scope to What-to-evaluate to Output to Self-application, with checkpoints (severity calibration, mandatory summary emission, zero-findings rule). The skill is read-only so no destructive-validation cap applies; it is not a 5 because there is no explicit feedback or error-recovery loop for ambiguous findings beyond "treat as low". | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the body is a self-contained, well-headed document with no nested or buried references, matching the good-structure anchor. It is not a 5 because the skill exceeds the ~50-line simple-skill exemption and the long definitional block in "What to evaluate" is inline content that could plausibly live in a one-level-deep reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |