Content
86%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 a tight, well-structured overview with concrete directives and a validation checkpoint. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit error-recovery feedback loop around the validation step.
Suggestions
Expand step 5 into a feedback loop: validate with trace-based checks, and if routing is wrong, fix the preference/alias and re-validate until traces confirm the expected model.
Add one short concrete example of a 'before/after' routing preference rewrite to make step 4 unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with zero padding; it assumes Claude's competence and every line (triggers, rule names, checklist) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific directives like "Ensure exactly one `default: true` provider" and "Rewrite vague preference descriptions with concrete task scopes" are actionable, though no executable code/commands are provided. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence with an explicit validation step ("Validate routing behavior using trace-based checks"), but it lacks an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop for config changes. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well under 50 lines with cleanly organized sections (When To Use, Apply These Rules, Execution Checklist) and no need for external references, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |