Content
71%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.
An exemplary lean router document: crisp sequencing, artifact handoff between steps, and ideal one-level-deep progressive disclosure structure. Its scores are dragged down by the bundle reality — the four referenced step files are missing, leaving no executable detail anywhere — and by the absence of any validation feedback loop after the testing step.
Suggestions
Ship the four referenced step files (step1-analysis.md through step4-testing.md) in the bundle; broken references defeat the entire progressive-disclosure design.
Add one executable anchor in the body — e.g. the factory registration snippet or the exact command to run single-layer tests — so the skill has concrete guidance even before the step files are opened.
Add an explicit feedback loop after step 4: "If tests fail, revisit the executor strategy chosen in step 1/step 3 before re-running" — turning the testing step into a real validation checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~20 lean lines: a two-line "When to use" section, one sequencing sentence, and a 4-row table. No concept explanation, no padding, assumes Claude's competence — every token earns its place. Matches anchor 5; not 4 because there are no over-explanations to trim at all. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Step purposes are specific and domain-concrete ("Create node class (header + source), register in factory, hook up shape inference"), but the body contains no executable code or commands, and the four step files that would carry the actual instructions are absent from the bundle, so following the guidance dead-ends. Some concrete guidance but key details missing fits anchor 3; not 4 because there is nothing executable to run without the missing files. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "Execute in order — each step produces artifacts consumed by the next" plus a numbered 4-step table with explicit artifact flow is a clear sequence, and step 4 (testing) serves as a checkpoint. Not 5 because there is no feedback loop (e.g. what to do when single-layer tests fail or shape inference is rejected); not 3 because the sequence and ordering constraints are explicit, not merely listed. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The design is textbook progressive disclosure — a concise overview table pointing one level deep to per-step files — but none of the four referenced files (step1-analysis.md through step4-testing.md) exist in the bundle, so every reference is broken and navigation fails at the first hop. Not 4 because broken references are a bigger defect than "minor organization gaps"; not 2 because the body itself is well-structured and non-monolithic, not inlined content that belongs elsewhere. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |