Content
82%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 clean, efficient instruction-only reference skill with a clear grounding workflow and safety rules. It could be strengthened by making the example response fully concrete and confirming the referenced bundle files exist.
Suggestions
Replace the '[safe excerpts from transcript.md]' placeholder in the Good response example with a short real quoted excerpt to model the expected citation behavior concretely.
Ensure outline.md, transcript.md, and quote.md are present in the skill bundle so the referenced grounding workflow is actually executable.
Add an explicit validate-fix-retry loop (e.g., if a claim cannot be sourced, state it is uncovered rather than searching again) to raise the workflow checkpoint quality.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence; it explains no general concepts and every section (grounding rules, response format, quotes pointer, safety) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance is given ('read outline.md to locate the relevant section, then read that section of transcript.md', 'check quote.md first'), but the 'Good response' example uses a placeholder '[safe excerpts from transcript.md]' rather than a fully concrete model answer. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered grounding rules give a clear sequence with a validation checkpoint ('If a claim isn't in transcript.md, say so explicitly'), but the error-recovery feedback loop is lighter than the anchor-5 example's validate-fix-retry pattern. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview body points to clearly-signaled one-level-deep references (outline.md, transcript.md, quote.md), but the referenced files were not found in the bundle directories, so their existence cannot be confirmed. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |