Content
80%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 tight, token-efficient body with a precise layout specification and a copy-ready output contract. Its main gaps are the absence of any validation/verification step in the workflow and the lack of a worked example for the procedure code blocks.
Suggestions
Add a final workflow step that verifies the output, e.g., '5. Validate: confirm all sections from step 3 are present and the artifact is well-formed HTML before finishing.'
Include one worked example of a common procedure block (e.g., a deploy command snippet) so the expected format of the code blocks is unambiguous.
Show a single example alert-table row to pin down the expected granularity of 'what it means / first response' entries.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~25-line body is lean with zero padding: "Produce a single-page engineering runbook." followed by a numbered workflow and an output contract — every line instructs, and no concepts Claude already knows are explained. Not a 4 because there is nothing to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance dominates: exact table columns ("alert name / severity / what it means / first response", "week / primary / secondary / backup"), counts ("3–4" procedures, "5 numbered steps"), and a copy-ready artifact template in the output contract. Not a 5 because there is no worked example of a filled-in procedure code block or alert row, leaving a minor gap for the most common case. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear (read DESIGN.md → identify service → layout → style/HTML), but there are no validation or verification checkpoints at all (e.g., confirm all seven sections are present or the artifact is well-formed). Not a 4 because checkpoints are absent rather than just minor; not a 2 because the sequence itself is coherent and well-defined. The document is generative rather than destructive/batch, so the cap-3 rule is not triggered but level 3 is still the best anchor fit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Workflow, Output contract) and no inlined content that belongs in a separate file; its single reference ("Read DESIGN.md") is one level deep and clearly signaled, and no bundle files exist to misnavigate. Per the short-skill rule this is a full-credit structure. Not a 4 because there are no organization gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |