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 concise, actionable planning skill with a clear design-then-verify workflow and explicit guardrails against fabrication. Its main weakness is that the shared references it instructs Claude to read do not exist in the bundle, which hurts navigability.
Suggestions
Resolve or inline the missing ../shared/operating-contract.md and ../shared/measurement-framework.md references so the "Read" instruction at the top does not point at non-existent files.
Add one concrete worked example of a ready_for_review brief to lift actionability from a checklist to copy-paste-ready guidance.
Make the verify-then-fix loop explicit (e.g., 'if the export exposes no delivery data, revise the brief to state the missing access and re-present') to tighten workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive with no padding or restating of concepts Claude already knows; every sentence instructs, so it matches the lean/efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives a concrete checklist of required brief elements (hypothesis, guardrail, stop condition, attribution caveat, etc.) and explicit prohibitions, though it lacks a worked example of a complete ready_for_review brief. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear two-phase sequence (design a bounded experiment, then verify externally) with checkpoints (human policy/eligibility check, stop condition, guardrail) is present, though the validate-fix-retry loop is implicit rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is short and well-sectioned and points to two one-level-deep shared files, but those references (../shared/operating-contract.md, ../shared/measurement-framework.md) do not resolve within the bundle, impairing navigation. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |