Content
100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, well-structured routing skill that distinguishes shared-mailbox actions from signed-in-user actions, names exact tools and parameters, and bakes safety and error-handling into the workflow. It is concise and actionable with no wasted tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, sectioned routing guidance with no explaining of concepts Claude already knows — e.g. "Require the exact delegated/shared mailbox owner email address or UPN" and "Treat send_email_on_behalf as high impact"; every line earns its place. Not a 2 because there is no padding to tighten. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable references throughout — named actions (list_shared_messages, fetch_shared_message, send_email_on_behalf, mark_shared_email_read_state, move_shared_email) and the exact parameter mailbox_user_principal_name; per the instruction-skill scoring note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this specific. Not a 2 because the action and parameter names are copy-paste concrete, not pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence with a pre-write checkpoint ("say which mailbox is being used before performing the write") and explicit error recovery ("If a write fails because shared/delegated scopes are unavailable, say the shared-mailbox action or scope is the blocker"). Not a 2 because the confirmation checkpoint and feedback loop satisfy the validation requirement for these high-impact sends. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed (no references/scripts/assets bundle exists) and clean sections (Required Target, Action Routing, Workflow, Safety, Example Requests), matching the under-50-lines allowance for scoring 3 on organization alone. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |