Content
82%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 content is an exceptionally lean, well-structured router that gives concrete situation-to-skill mappings and a clear answering procedure with completion checkpoints and a feedback loop. Its only gaps are the absence of a worked output example and a body long enough that splitting the skill catalog into a reference file could be considered.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative ('Name the next kit skill. Stop.'), assumes Claude's competence, and never explains concepts Claude already knows. Not a 4 because there is no noticeable padding to trim — every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete decision tree maps specific situations to named skills (/docs-contribution-router, /sdk-craft, etc.) with a 4-step 'How to answer' procedure, so guidance is mostly executable. Not a 5 because it never shows a worked example of the expected output (a sample routing answer with a ready-to-type line). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'How to answer' gives a clearly sequenced 4-step process with an explicit 'Done when' completion checkpoint, plus a 'Did this help?' feedback loop. Not a 5 because the validation is a post-session yes/no follow-up rather than an in-workflow verify step, though that is appropriate for a non-destructive router. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear single-level sections (Docs, Tooling, GTM, Standalone, How to answer) with no nested references and easy navigation; keeping the catalog inline is appropriate for a router. Not a 5 because the body is somewhat long (~80 lines) and the per-flow skill catalog could plausibly live in a one-level reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |