Content
86%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.
The body is a lean, fully operational workflow with named tools, idempotency and retry rules, and explicit error-recovery guidance. Its only gaps are illustrative details (argument shapes, sample task states) that would make the guidance fully copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every sentence is an operational instruction ("Create one UUID requestId for the intended task, then call `paperclip_create_task`. Reuse that UUID and identical arguments if the same call must be retried.") with no background on what Paperclip is or any concept Claude already knows; nothing to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool calls are named (`paperclip_connection`, `paperclip_create_task`, `paperclip_read_task`) with precise behaviors (one UUID per task, identical retry arguments, no continuous polling), but there are no example arguments or sample returned task states, leaving minor gaps for an instruction-only skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The paragraphs form a clear chronological sequence (identify connection → select agent → prepare task → create → report) with a pre-action checkpoint ("Resolve ambiguity about team, scope or assignee with the user before creating work") and error-recovery loops ("After an unknown outcome or disconnected call, inspect tasks before doing anything else"), but steps are unnumbered prose and there is no explicit verification that creation succeeded before returning the task ID. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is short (~13 lines), single-purpose, and self-contained with no bundle files present and no references to files that do not exist; its four focused paragraphs each map to one phase (identify, prepare, create, report), which satisfies the simple-skill exception for well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |