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.
A well-structured interpretive playbook with excellent progressive disclosure (verified real, one-level references), a clear decision framework with a defined output, and largely actionable guidance. The main weakness is conciseness: several sections re-teach standard attribution and ROAS/LTV concepts Claude already knows, which could be trimmed in favor of pointers to the reference files.
Suggestions
Compress the six standard attribution-model definitions to a one-line bias note each (or defer to references/attribution-model-comparison.md) since Claude already knows last-click/first-click/linear/time-decay basics.
Trim foundational framing like 'ROAS is short-term... LTV is long-term' and the ROAS-vs-LTV primer to the worked example and the payback-period decision rule, which carry the actual guidance.
Consolidate the scattered detection thresholds and pre-commitment rules (test-duration, analysis-window, 30% divergence) into the 12-considerations framework as explicit validation gates so the Scale/Hold/Kill output has a single checkable procedure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly tight and every section carries domain-specific judgment (incrementality rate ranges, platform-specific conversion-window defaults, detection thresholds like 'platform-reported exceeds warehouse-attributed by more than 30%'), but several stretches re-explain concepts Claude already knows — e.g., textbook definitions of last-click ('The conversion is fully credited to the last click before the conversion event'), first-click, linear, and time-decay attribution models, and basics like 'ROAS is short-term... LTV is long-term.' The attribution-model section in particular duplicates material that could be compressed to a pointer into references/attribution-model-comparison.md. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, executable guidance: an explicit blended CAC formula ('(total ad spend across platforms) divided by (total new customers from warehouse)'), worked numeric examples (Meta 2.5x ROAS / $80 LTV vs Google 1.8x / $200 LTV), concrete thresholds ('real performance changes are 30% or more'), a 12-item checklist, and a defined three-way decision output (Scale / Hold / Kill). Minor gaps: no concrete reconciliation commands or example dashboard queries, and some guidance stays at the principle level ('run incrementality tests at least quarterly') without setup specifics deferred to references. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The '12 considerations' section gives an explicit ordered walk-through with a defined terminal decision (Scale/Hold/Kill), and earlier sections sequence the material logically (panel completeness → reporting quirks → attribution → reconciliation → decision rules). Validation checkpoints exist in the form of explicit detection patterns (platform-vs-warehouse divergence >30%, sum-of-platforms vs warehouse totals) and a pre-committed data-gap rule. It falls short of a 5 because checkpoints are embedded across sections rather than consolidated into the decision procedure, and the pre-commitment rules (test windows, analysis windows) are described but not wired into the framework as explicit gates. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview with detail correctly pushed to seven real one-level-deep reference files; all referenced paths (attribution-model-comparison.md, platform-reporting-quirks.md, dashboard-reconciliation-patterns.md, cohort-analysis-templates.md, incrementality-testing-playbook.md, common-interpretation-failures.md, metric-definitions-glossary.md) exist in references/ and contain the promised content. Each is signaled inline at the relevant section with a clear one-line description of what it holds, plus a consolidated Reference files section. Navigation is easy and nothing is nested two levels deep. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |