Content
81%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 highly actionable with a clear, validated workflow and good structure, but it carries redundant content — templates duplicated against the reference file and overlapping avoid/failure-pattern lists — that could be trimmed.
Suggestions
Remove or condense the four inlined templates in the body and defer to references/update-templates.md, keeping only one short representative example inline.
Merge the "What to avoid" list into "Failure patterns" to eliminate the duplicated hedging/buried-asks/activity-vs-outcome entries.
Tighten the Q1–Q5 explanations (e.g., "If they read only one sentence, what should they take away?") which restate what the heading already conveys.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the body inlines four full templates (weekly update, executive review, bad news, decision request) that are duplicated in references/update-templates.md, and the "Failure patterns" and "What to avoid" sections overlap noticeably (hedging, buried lede, buried asks, activity vs outcome). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready fill-in templates, a concrete 5-question framework, an explicit inverted-pyramid structure, and a tone/register table — fully actionable for an instruction skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step Workflow (define audience → draft headline → write pyramid → cut → verify request → check audience → send & follow up) with explicit validation checkpoints (Steps 5–6) and a follow-up feedback loop in Step 7. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("Reference files" → references/update-templates.md), but the inlined templates duplicate the reference rather than being cleanly split, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |