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 body is a well-structured, highly actionable router with clear sequencing and explicit scope guardrails. Its main cost is redundancy: the routing message and the no-verdict rule are each stated multiple times, inflating token usage without adding behavioral clarity.
Suggestions
State the routing blockquote once (e.g., in Scope Boundary) and reference it from Step 3 and Step 4 instead of repeating it verbatim; likewise consolidate the 'no verdict / never improvise removal analysis' rule into a single place.
Add a short example of the flag summary table (columns and one filled row) so the Step 3 output format is unambiguous.
Add a validation checkpoint for the prerequisite MCP server: what to do when list-flags or get-flag is unavailable or returns an error.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The routing blockquote is duplicated verbatim in Scope Boundary and Step 3, and the 'no verdict / never improvise removal analysis' rule is repeated four times across sections ('That's it. No analysis. No bullet points. No verdict.'). Otherwise efficient with no explanation of known concepts, so this sits between noticeably verbose (2) and lean (4). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: named MCP tools (list-flags, get-flag), numbered steps, branch handling for exact/multiple/no matches, a default environment, and an exact routing message to emit. Not 5 because the summary output is described as a list with no example of the table format the user will actually see. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow (parse, resolve, summarize, route) is clearly sequenced with branch checkpoints and an explicit disambiguation ask-the-user loop. Not 5 because there is no validation or fallback guidance when the required MCP server or tools are unavailable or a get-flag call fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body is well-sectioned, with one-level-deep links to sibling skills in a routing table. Not 5 because at ~110 lines the duplicated guardrail content is inlined rather than factored into a single well-signaled reference, and no internal reference structure supports the routing details. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |