Content
92%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 is an exemplar of lean progressive disclosure for a router skill, with a real one-level reference and unambiguous routing. The only gap is guidance for ambiguous or multi-intent requests.
Suggestions
Add a one-line tie-breaker rule for ambiguous or multi-intent requests (e.g., which lane wins when both 'improve' and 'refactor' apply).
Optionally note how to handle requests that don't map to any of the five lanes (fallback or clarifying question).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean routing table with no concept re-explanation; every token earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready lane mappings (create -> skill-creator, etc.) give executable direction, though no explicit rule for ambiguous multi-intent requests is provided. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A simple single-purpose router with an unambiguous mapping; the simple-skill exception applies and no destructive/batch validation cap is triggered. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Body is a clear overview with a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference (./references/contract.yaml, a real file) consulted only when lane contract details are needed. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |