Content
82%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 lean, well-structured router skill: token-efficient tables, named tools, concrete error recovery, and verified one-hop references. The body deliberately delegates execution detail to reference files, which costs it slightly on actionability and workflow clarity within the body itself.
Suggestions
Add one example tool invocation (e.g., a sample forecast_costs call with a realistic Azure scope path) to the MCP Tools or Workflow section to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
Surface the supplementary cost-forecast references (guardrails, examples, parameter contract) in the Quick Reference table so they are discoverable without opening workflow.md first.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Workflow section (e.g., verify forecast currency/scope match the confirmed inputs before presenting results) so the feedback loop lives in the body, not only in the Error Handling table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~40-line body is all tables and terse directives ("Never combine currencies", "Honor the returned polling interval") with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. Matches the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete — named MCP tools (forecast_costs, get_retail_prices, start_pricesheet_download), a specific error→action table, and an input checklist ("scope, assumptions, period, region, OS, and currency") — but there are no example tool invocations or sample scope paths in the body, leaving minor gaps. This sits between 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' (4) and fully copy-paste-ready coverage (5), closer to 4. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps are clearly sequenced with a decision step ("Distinguish forecasts from hypothetical pricing") and an input-confirmation checkpoint, plus an Error Handling table that acts as a feedback loop (retry once, then report the trace ID). It is not a 5 because the actual execution sequence is delegated to referenced workflow files and there are no explicit validation checkpoints on results within the body itself. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with an intent-based Quick Reference table, and all referenced paths (references/cost-forecast/workflow.md, references/pricing-estimate.md, references/tool-fallback.md) resolve to real files. It is not a 5 because four supplementary cost-forecast files (guardrails, examples, request-body-schema, error-handling) are only discoverable via a second hop through workflow.md rather than surfaced at the SKILL.md level, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |