Content
37%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 lean and cleanly organized as a directory map, but it provides zero actionable guidance — no instructions, commands, or workflow for using the eval pack — and most of its referenced paths are dead while real bundle files go unmentioned. A reader learns where things would be, not what to do.
Suggestions
Add a short 'How to use' section with concrete steps/commands: how to run the eval runner, and how to route a guardrail claim to a case in evals.yaml and judge it against its acceptance criteria.
Align the Layout section with the actual bundle: `evals/`, `tessl.json`, and `workflow-guardrail-candidates.json` do not exist; instead document `references/contract.yaml`, `references/task-profile.json`, and `references/scorer-calibration/`.
Include a validation checkpoint for interpreting results, e.g. what to do when a candidate's acceptance criteria fail or when only the skill name (no route proof) is available.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~13-line body is a lean layout map with zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — "every token earns its place". Not below 5 because there is no over-explanation or filler anywhere. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The body "only describes rather than instructs": it states that "`references/evals.yaml` holds the claim-to-case routing and calibration expectations" but gives no steps, commands, or code for actually producing or evaluating a recommendation. Not 2 because there is not even a high-level hint about how to use the pack. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | No sequence or steps of any kind appear — the body is purely a file inventory ("`evals/` contains per-case task and criteria files"). This matches 'Steps missing or incoherent; no sequence; no validation for risky operations'; not 2 because there is no rough sequence to evaluate. | 1 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The Layout section is a clean, well-signaled one-level overview and `references/evals.yaml` exists and matches its description, but three of the four referenced paths (`evals/`, `tessl.json`, `workflow-guardrail-candidates.json`) do not exist in the bundle, while existing files (`references/contract.yaml`, `references/task-profile.json`, `references/scorer-calibration/`) go undocumented. This exceeds 'minor organization gaps' so not 4, but the SKILL.md itself is well-organized so it sits above 2. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |