Content
92%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-engineered instruction-only skill: every operational decision (statuses, route types, option mechanics, file layout) is spelled out, the 8-step workflow carries explicit done-criteria and feedback loops, and detail is properly split into three well-signaled one-level-deep references. The only weakness is minor redundancy — the fallback-route rule is stated in three places and a few rationale sentences could be trimmed.
Suggestions
Consolidate the fallback-route rule: 'Never recommend only one route unless access is confirmed and policy-safe' (Tool access map), 'Every loop spec must include a preferred route and at least one fallback route' (Tool routes and fallbacks), and step 5's restatement say nearly the same thing — state it once authoritatively.
Trim small rationale sentences such as 'Asking several at once is bewildering' and 'Mandate nothing structural: a loop needs no AI, no checkpoint, and no schedule unless the grilling shows it does' to bare imperatives to squeeze out the last redundant tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of basic concepts, dense operational prose, and proper deferral of question trees, vocabulary, and templates to references. Minor trimming opportunities exist: the fallback-route rule is stated twice ("Never recommend only one route unless access is confirmed and policy-safe" vs. "Every loop spec must include a preferred route and at least one fallback route" plus step 5's restatement), and small rationale sentences like "Asking several at once is bewildering" could be cut. This is anchor 4 ("efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed") rather than anchor 5, where every token earns its place with zero redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable instruction-level guidance: exact host tool names ("request_user_input", "AskUserQuestion"), exact option mechanics ("2-4 options", "(Recommended)" label first), exact access statuses to record, enumerated route types with default fallback rules, concrete file paths ("NOTES.md", "automations/<loop>.md"), and per-step done criteria. Per the rubric's scoring note for instruction-only skills, the absence of code is not penalized since the guidance is specific and directly executable — matching anchor 5's "fully executable... specific examples cover the common cases". | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-8 run in order, each ending in an explicit completion criterion ("*Done when...*") with the rule "do not advance until it is met" — explicit validation checkpoints. Feedback loops are present: step 4's "Done when no open question remains on any branch" forces grill-until-resolved, and step 8 loops back to step 3. No destructive or batch operations exist, so no validation cap applies. This matches anchor 5 ("clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops... checklists"); anchor 4's "minor validation gaps" does not apply since every step carries an exit check. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview holding only the method, with all three referenced files verified to exist, be one level deep, and contain no nested references. Each reference is signposted twice with load timing — inline at the relevant step ("For ready question trees by work type, load `references/question-bank.md`") and in the "Additional resources" section with explicit step numbers. This matches anchor 5's "clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation". | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |