Content
78%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.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced instruction skill with concrete scoring tables, formula, category mapping, and error handling. Its main weakness is a dangling, self-referential supporting-file reference that hurts navigation.
Suggestions
Remove or fix the `scoring-matrix.json` reference in the Supporting Files section — the file does not exist in the bundle and the note '(see Supporting Files section)' is circular; either ship the file or drop the section.
Promote the trailing validation checklist into an explicit inline checkpoint (e.g. validate factor values in Step 1 before scoring) to tighten the workflow feedback loop.
Trim two of the four near-duplicate worked examples to reduce token cost while keeping representative P0/P2/P3/P1 coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence: tight tables, a one-line formula, and JSON I/O blocks with no concept padding; the four worked examples add some length that could be trimmed, so it stops just short of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, executable guidance — exact numeric scoring tables, an explicit formula, score-to-category thresholds, error-handling rules, and copy-ready input/output JSON covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced with an error-handling feedback section and a validation checklist; it falls short of 5 because validation is a trailing checklist rather than an explicit inline checkpoint within the calculation flow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the small scoring matrix is sensibly inlined, but the "Supporting Files" section references a `scoring-matrix.json` that does not exist in the bundle and is described with a circular self-reference, a clear organization gap. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |