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.
The body is a lean, well-structured verification workflow with concrete commands and strong per-section validation checkpoints; it falls just short of top marks on conciseness, actionability, and workflow clarity due to minor editorial padding, a few implicit execution details, and parallel rather than explicitly ordered sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Tight sections with concrete commands and no concept over-explanation; only mild editorial padding ('The prove everything skill. Nothing ships as validated without this.') keeps it just below the lean/efficient 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands throughout ('ruview_verify', 'verify.py --generate-hash', 'bash scripts/generate-witness-bundle.sh', 'ruview_claim_check {text}') with real expected outputs; minor gaps (e.g., working directory, full flag set) keep it at 'mostly executable' rather than fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each section carries an explicit validation checkpoint ('Must print VERDICT: PASS', 'must be 7/7 PASS') and a feedback loop (hash changed → regenerate → re-verify), but the four sections are parallel rather than a single ordered sequence, so checkpoints are mostly present with a minor ordering gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single <50-line file organized into four well-signaled sections with no nested references; no bundle files exist so the simple-skill exception applies, allowing a 5 for well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |