Content
78%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-built, lean instruction skill: exact MCP tool invocation, a clear situation-to-rule-file routing table, and sensible rules of engagement. The main gaps are a redundant read-only statement and an unnamed read tool in the workflow steps.
Suggestions
Name the read tool in step 2 (e.g., use `mcp__team-rules__file_read` or equivalent) so the read step is as copy-paste ready as the `file_list` call in step 1.
State the read-only constraint once (either the intro or 'Rules of engagement') and drop the mild padding like 'It's the single source of truth' to tighten the body further.
Add a light checkpoint after reading the rules (e.g., confirm all plausibly applicable files were read before citing them in the plan) to close the workflow's only validation gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the read-only constraint is stated twice (intro: 'The workspace is **read-only** — nobody's agent can write to it' and again under 'Rules of engagement'), and 'It's the single source of truth' is mild padding. Not 5 due to this minor redundancy; not 3 because nearly every other token earns its place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance: an exact tool call ('Call `mcp__team-rules__file_list` with `path: "/rules"` and `depth: 2`'), a situation-to-file mapping, and specific forbidden tools by name. Not 5 because step 2 ('read every rule file that plausibly applies') never names the read tool, leaving a small gap in copy-paste readiness. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence (list → read applicable → cite in plan → apply) with explicit edge-case handling ('If a rule conflicts… surface the conflict and ask', 'If no rule applies, say so'). Not 5 because there are no checkpoints confirming coverage before proceeding; not 3 because the sequence and decision points are well defined. The destructive-operation cap does not apply since the workflow is read-only. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into clear sections with a quick-reference table for navigation — matching the simple-skill guideline for a top score. The Quick Reference table partially duplicates the step-2 examples but serves as effective navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |