Content
67%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-structured, actionable guide for facilitating Opportunity Solution Tree sessions: the 7-step process is concrete with specific heuristics and feedback loops. Its main weaknesses are redundancy — the tree structure is explained three times — and the absence of a worked example tree in the visualization step, plus only implicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Collapse the 'What It Is' and 'Core Structure' sections into 'Domain Context' (they restate the same four-level structure) and trim 'When to Use It' bullets that duplicate the frontmatter triggers, cutting roughly 15 redundant lines.
Add a compact worked example of a rendered OST (outcome → 2 opportunities → 3 solutions → 1-2 experiments with hypothesis/method/metric/success threshold) to Step 6 so the visualization step is copy-paste actionable.
Make validation checkpoints explicit in the Process: e.g., Step 1 'confirm the outcome with the requesting stakeholder before proceeding' and Step 2 'verify each opportunity is traced to at least one interview or data point'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The Process and Domain Context sections carry real value, but the tree's four-level structure is restated three times — "Domain Context" (detailed), "What It Is" ("connect a business outcome to the customer opportunities that drive it"), and "Core Structure" — and "When to Use It" largely repeats the frontmatter triggers. This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') rather than 2, since the padding is concentrated in short redundant sections rather than pervasive. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: "identify 3-7 customer opportunities", "Opportunity Score (Importance × [1 − Satisfaction])", "brainstorm 3+ solutions", "suggest 1-2 fast experiments", "Specify: hypothesis, method, metric, success threshold". It stops short of anchor 5 because Step 6 offers no worked example or template of a rendered tree ("Use indentation, bullets, or a visual tool"), and it is above anchor 3 because the steps are specific and executable rather than pseudocode-level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The seven-step Process is clearly sequenced with built-in filters (Step 3 prioritization, Step 5 assumption testing) and feedback loops ("Kill solutions that don't validate", "loop back if experiments fail"). It falls short of anchor 5 because validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit — e.g., no checkpoint to confirm the outcome with stakeholders or verify opportunities against research data — but is above anchor 3 since checkpoints are present for most steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so all content is inline in a single well-sectioned document; section headers (Domain Context, Input Requirements, When (Not) to Use, Process, Further Reading) make navigation easy, and the external links in Further Reading are one level deep. It matches anchor 4 ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps') rather than 5 because the ~100-line body contains redundant sections (What It Is / Core Structure duplicating Domain Context) that better organization would collapse. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |