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 tightly written, well-sequenced guide that earns nearly top marks: it is token-efficient, deliberately delegates volatile details (schema, CLI flags, wiring code) to references and a docs-lookup skill, and its references are real, well-signaled, and exactly one level deep. The only soft spot is actionability/workflow verification: the concrete artifacts (a sample scenario, the agent-side wiring code, an explicit post-write validation step) live entirely in references or lookups, leaving small gaps between instruction and execution.
Suggestions
Inline one short example scenario (instructions + agent_expectations skeleton) in the 'Write instructions' section so the two instruction shapes have a concrete, copy-adaptable exemplar in-file.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after authoring a set, e.g. 'run one scenario from the file and confirm it parses and grades before writing the rest', to close the workflow's verification loop in-file rather than only via references.
For 'Make the agent consume the scenario', inline a minimal detect-the-simulation code sketch (even 5 lines) alongside the four steps, since the wiring branch is the highest-risk code the skill directs the user to write.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: it explicitly refuses to restate volatile facts ('Field names and commands change, so this skill doesn't restate them' — delegating schema/CLI details to another skill), assumes Claude's competence throughout, and every paragraph delivers rule-plus-reason rather than background explanation. Even the short justificatory lines ('A file you haven't read isn't a test suite') earn their place by motivating a rule, so it fits the 'every token earns its place' anchor rather than the 4-anchor's trimmable over-explanation. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly concrete and executable: one runnable command ('lk agent simulate text -n 10'), a numbered baseline-refinement procedure, two defined instruction shapes, a numbered four-step agent-wiring procedure (Detect/Seed/Mock/Grade), and concrete rules ('Write absolute dates', 'Judge by outcome… Don't prescribe wording'). It falls short of the 5-anchor's copy-paste-ready coverage because the actual scenario-file format and agent-side wiring code are deferred to references and a docs lookup, leaving no in-file example of a scenario or its expected structure — but it is well above the 3-anchor's pseudocode/incomplete level since the deferral is deliberate and the steps are unambiguous. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The end-to-end sequence is clear and coherently ordered (generate baseline → read agent code → ask what to probe → write instructions → split into sets → wire the agent → grow from failures → avoid bad tests), with numbered lists for the refinement and wiring procedures. Checkpoints exist (confirm flags with --help, 'read every scenario', 'how to confirm the wiring took effect', the generator-upload confirmation gate), so it exceeds the 3-anchor, but a few verifications are implicit or delegated to references rather than stated as explicit validate-then-proceed steps, keeping it below the 5-anchor's explicit feedback-loop pattern. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references: all three referenced files (references/risk-coverage.md, references/scenario-craft.md, references/connecting-the-agent.md) exist, each is cited in context where relevant ('Details and examples are in references/scenario-craft.md', 'covers it in full, including how to confirm the wiring took effect'), and a References section indexes them with one-line descriptions. This matches the anchor for clear overview with easy navigation, with no nested references or inlined content that belongs elsewhere. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |