Content
61%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 well-organized with an executable runtime command, a clear report contract, and a real one-level reference, but it is slightly verbose and its batch research workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., verify the engine's raw support file path exists before synthesizing, and confirm each [n] citation resolves to a Sources entry).
Trim restated guidance like 'Do not turn weak evidence into a confident trend' that duplicates the Source Coverage Rules.
Define or resolve the '<staged-skill-dir>' placeholder inline (e.g., note where to find it in the skill preamble) so the runtime command is fully copy-pasteable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with actionable commands and a tight report contract, but several passages restate obvious guidance (e.g., 'Do not turn weak evidence into a confident trend', 'Treat that file as evidence support') that could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete copy-pasteable runtime command with real flags and a complete Markdown report contract template; only minor gaps such as the undefined '<staged-skill-dir>' placeholder keep it from a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is well sequenced and covers engine-failure fallback, but this batch/research operation lacks explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying the raw support file exists, confirming citations resolve), capping clarity at 3 per the batch-operation rule. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured sections with a single one-level-deep, clearly-signaled reference (references/save-html-brief.md, confirmed to exist) loaded only on explicit request; minor gaps such as not linking the script path inline. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |