Content
85%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill: field definitions with pass conditions, a sequenced hearing protocol with per-step validation evidence and a re-ask loop, a defined confirmation surface, and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure into a real reference file. The only notable gap is the absence of a worked example showing a filled-in convergence record or rendered Scope Confirmation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and table-driven, assumes Claude's competence, and spends no tokens on known concepts. A few abstract justification passages ('Step 2's evidence is what keeps the hearing reviewable...') could be trimmed, matching anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: per-field pass conditions, a 4-step hearing protocol with completion evidence per step, a five-section Scope Confirmation shape, and a storage table naming carriers and writers. Held at 4 rather than 5 because no worked example of a convergence record or a rendered Scope Confirmation is provided. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Hearing Protocol is a clearly sequenced 4-step process with explicit completion-evidence checkpoints, a re-ask-once feedback loop in Step 3 for values failing pass conditions, and a closing Quality Checklist. This matches anchor 5 (explicit validation, feedback loops, checklist); checkpoints are explicit, not implicit, so 4 undersells it. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body stays an overview and correctly splits judgment rules into references/criteria.md (a real file, one level deep), signaled both inline ('Judgment rules per field') and in a References section with a content description. Clear split and easy navigation match anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |