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.
The body is a tight, well-sequenced routing guide with concrete MCP verbs and clear branching between final results and brain_frames. Its main gaps are the absence of a worked example with real values (placeholders like "..." remain), a vague final outcome step, and boilerplate Limitations/Example sections that pad without informing.
Suggestions
Add a worked example showing a sample brain_frame and a completed continue call with a realistic proposal_text ending in "PREDICT: 0.75 <why>".
Specify the parameters for the outcome call in step 6 (e.g., commitment id, result status) instead of leaving "...".
Replace the generic Limitations boilerplate and the redundant Example section with skill-specific caveats (e.g., what to do if a submit_token expires or a frame is malformed).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core workflow (steps 1–6) is lean and assumes Claude's competence — "Routing sugar over the two MCP verbs — no logic lives here" wastes nothing. Minor trimmable padding exists: the "When to Use" section repeats the frontmatter description verbatim, the Example section restates it a third time with no added content, and the Limitations section is generic boilerplate not specific to this skill. This keeps it below anchor 5 but above anchor 3 since the instructional content itself is efficient. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete API calls are given ("acc_act(runtime=\"solve\", input=\"<the goal>\")" and the continue call with frame_id/submit_token/proposal_text), but the continue call uses "..." placeholders and there is no worked example showing an actual brain_frame, a filled-in proposal_text, or a final result. This matches anchor 3 (concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details) rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable standard. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps give a clear, correctly ordered sequence with an explicit branch ("If the result is final... If the result is a brain_frame...") and guardrails ("Never leave a received frame unresolved"). It is below anchor 5 because step 6 is vague ("acc_act(runtime=\"outcome\", ...)" with no parameters) and there is no guidance for error/edge cases such as an invalid submit_token; no destructive or batch operations apply, so no cap is triggered. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no external references are needed, so per the simple-skill guidance it can score high on organization alone. It falls short of 5 because the numbered workflow floats without its own section header and the Example section adds no navigational or instructional value. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |