Content
86%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 terse, well-structured routing workflow that respects token budget and gives actionable decision rules. Its main gap is the absence of a concrete worked example to anchor the abstract routing conditions.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example (rough ask → routed skills → final work order) to make the abstract conditions concrete.
Show the 'ask the negative once' checkpoint applied in that example so the feedback step is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line does work, assuming Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete decision rules map specific conditions to named skills and give a clear output template, but lacks a worked input→output example that would make it fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced flow with a termination-gated loop ('Route again until nothing is left to invent') and a checkpoint ('ask the negative once'), but no explicit error-recovery feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references (none present) and a well-organized structure of intro, routing bullets, loop, and output template, qualifying for the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |