Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-structured with a clear triage order, evidence checklist, and reference routing. It would benefit from explicit hypothesis-confirmation checkpoints and more concrete ranking guidance.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step in the triage workflow, e.g. "Confirm each hypothesis against requested evidence before ranking the next layer."
Specify how to rank hypotheses (e.g., by likelihood and by how cheaply evidence can confirm them) so the output step is actionable rather than abstract.
Optionally include a minimal example of a short fix plan + verification steps so the Output section is concrete rather than a list of labels.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and bullet-driven with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place, matching the lean/efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete checklists ("Evidence To Request") and a triage sequence, but offers no executable commands or specific examples and leaves hypothesis ranking underspecified, matching the some-concrete-but-incomplete anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered triage sequence and an Output section give a recognizable workflow, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint to confirm a hypothesis before ranking the next, matching the sequence-with-implicit-checkpoints anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and one-level-deep references to sibling skills, matching the guideline allowing a 3 for short well-organized skills without external bundle references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |