Content
88%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 an unusually actionable playbook: verbatim questions, routing tables, a fill-in deliverable template, and explicit decision gates with a post-hire feedback loop, all dense with attributed, non-generic guidance. Its only issues are minor redundancy — the header repeats the description and the Receipts section duplicates quotes.md — and a slightly heavy body for an overview file.
Suggestions
Drop or shrink the 'Receipts' section to one or two anchor quotes and point to references/quotes.md for the rest, removing the duplication flagged in both conciseness and progressive_disclosure.
Trim the opening paragraph's restatement of frontmatter facts (guest count, lead-team roster) or compress it to a single line, since the description already carries that information.
Consider moving the 8-row 'Grade existing work' rubric table into references/frameworks.md (linked from a short 'Grade existing work' stub) to slim the always-loaded body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains generic hiring concepts, instead packing each line with named, non-derivable guidance ('Never test: structure-sounding answers whose ideas are weak (Jackie Bavaro)'). However, the opening paragraph restates frontmatter facts (guest count, lead team) and the six 'Receipts' quotes duplicate references/quotes.md, giving minor instances that could be trimmed — the 4 anchor rather than the every-token-earns-its-place 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is directly executable: a question bank with verbatim questions and follow-ups ('Tell me about something that would not exist without your initiative. Then dig six levels: how exactly?'), a complete copy-paste deliverable template, and a 1/3/5 grading rubric with a totalling rule out of 40. For an instruction-only skill this is copy-paste-ready coverage of the common cases, matching the 5 anchor rather than the minor-gaps 4. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is clearly sequenced (Diagnose with a max-4-question cap → routing table for picking the play → run A–F → deliverable → 30-day follow-up) with explicit decision gates ('If you cannot name the specific problem, delay the search') and a genuine feedback loop (the 30-day would-you-rehire check that 'fixes the loop, not just the person'). Checkpoints are explicit, matching the 5 anchor; this is not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle structure is good: references/frameworks.md and references/quotes.md both exist, are exactly one level deep, and are clearly signaled in 'Go deeper' with a description of what each contains. The gap is that the inline 'Receipts' quotes overlap references/quotes.md — content that could live solely in the reference — placing it at the 'minor organization gaps' 4 anchor rather than the cleanly-split 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |