Content
68%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-organized, actionable skill body with concrete tool inventories, a copy-paste TOML config, and clear sequencing. Its main gap is the absence of verification steps before destructive operations (workspace_delete, checkpoint_restore), which the rubric caps at 3 for workflow clarity; a pre-deletion 'workspace_get' confirmation step would resolve it.
Suggestions
Add a verification step to the destructive flows: call 'workspace_get' or 'workspace_list' to confirm the target workspace (and 'checkpoint_list' for the checkpoint) before 'workspace_delete' or 'checkpoint_restore', then re-confirm with the user — this lifts the workflow-clarity cap.
Show a concrete 'mcp_token_issue' example (workspace name, a clear token label like 'codex-readonly', and the shape of the returned url/token) so the flow is copy-paste executable end to end.
Trim the 'Key Points' section, which restates the introduction ('A control-plane token does not expose file tools directly'), or merge its non-duplicated points into the sections they belong to.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient: the tool list is one line per tool, flows are terse, and it assumes competence rather than explaining MCP concepts. The 'Key Points' section partially restates the introduction ('A control-plane token does not expose file tools directly' repeats lines 8-10), which is minor over-explanation that could be trimmed — anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool names ('workspace_create', 'mcp_token_issue'), a copy-paste TOML snippet with 'bearer_token_env_var = "AFS_WORKSPACE_TOKEN"', and exact endpoint URLs make the guidance mostly executable. Minor gaps: no example call/arguments for 'mcp_token_issue' (workspace name, token label, expected response fields) and 'checkpoint_create' naming is described only abstractly — anchor 4, not 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Flows are clearly sequenced (the four-step numbered token-issuance flow) and destructive operations require user confirmation, but destructive operations ('workspace_delete', 'checkpoint_restore') have no verification step such as calling 'workspace_get' or 'workspace_list' to confirm the target before acting. Per the rubric guideline, missing validation for destructive operations caps this dimension at 3 even though sequencing is otherwise solid. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned (Before Acting, tools, flows, endpoint config, key points) with no buried or nested references, and no bundle files exist to navigate. It inlines the endpoint configuration details in '.mcp.json' that could arguably live in a separate reference, and at ~96 lines it exceeds the 'under 50 lines' simple-skill threshold, so anchor 4 fits better than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |