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.
The content is a well-structured, actionable guide with a clear sequenced workflow, explicit verification steps, and strong safety guardrails for the baseline variation. Its main weaknesses are redundancy between the 'What NOT to Do' section and earlier sections, and the lack of a concrete example tool call.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'What NOT to Do' section by removing bullets that verbatim repeat the Safety section, Step 3, and the modelConfigKey format section, or move the section earlier and drop the duplicates.
Add one example clone tool call (sourceVariationKey, key, and a single override) to make the common case copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit error-recovery loop after Step 4, e.g. 'If verification shows the wrong fields differ, delete the bad variation and recreate it with only the intended override.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and free of concept over-explanation, but the 'What NOT to Do' section substantially repeats earlier guidance — 'Don't pass unchanged fields when cloning' restates Step 3, two baseline bullets restate the Safety section, and the modelConfigKey warning restates the format section — so it could be meaningfully tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: specific MCP tool names, required fields ('sourceVariationKey', 'key', 'name'), an example identifier ('gpt4o-mini-cost-test'), and exact modelConfigKey formats ('OpenAI.gpt-4o', 'Anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5'). Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absence of code is not penalized, though no example tool payload is shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Identify -> Design -> Create -> Verify sequence with explicit verification checkpoints ('use get-ai-config to confirm', 'Flag any issues') and a practical note on interpreting API responses. It falls short of a 5 because there is no explicit verify -> fix -> retry error-recovery loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the body is well organized into scannable sections with one clearly signaled external docs link and Related Skills pointers, and no nested references. It is slightly over the ~50-line clean-skill range and parts of the tool reference could live in a separate file, leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |