Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a concise, well-structured routing overview with a clear workflow and references section. Its main weaknesses are directional rather than executable guidance and a references section whose links do not match the actual bundle.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready snippet (e.g. a WebView bridge injection snippet or a validation command) to lift actionability.
Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow, such as 'Confirm campaign, entry ID, and allowed origins before coding; only proceed when all are verified.'
Fix the References section to match the actual bundle: remove or create the missing web/android/ios/concepts/troubleshooting paths, and surface the existing references/environment-variables.md, references/samples-validation.md, and references/versioning-and-drift.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense with specific terms (SDK readiness, bridge injection, CSP, WebView lifecycle, version drift) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete checklists of what to confirm (entry ID, allowed origins, lifecycle events) but the guidance is directional rather than executable, and step 2 simply delegates ('Route to the platform skill'). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five steps are clearly sequenced with a debug step (step 5), but there is no explicit validation gate or 'only proceed when confirmed' checkpoint, so checkpoints are only implicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The References section is well-signaled with one-level links, but several referenced paths do not exist (web/, android/, ios/, concepts/, troubleshooting/) and three of four actual reference files are not surfaced, making navigation unreliable. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |