Content
35%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 persona/knowledge catalog rather than an operational skill: it enumerates cloud technologies Claude already knows, provides almost no executable guidance, and inlines everything instead of using reference files. Its strongest element is the closing paragraph, which is the only concise, concrete, verification-aware instruction in the file.
Suggestions
Replace the Capabilities/Knowledge Base catalogs with a short operational workflow (requirements -> constraints -> candidate architectures -> trade-off table -> validation) and move any retained capability detail into references/ files linked one level deep.
Add concrete, actionable artifacts: a requirements-gathering checklist, a skeleton Terraform module layout, a cost-estimation worksheet, and a trade-off/ADR template with a worked example.
Make verification steps explicit in the workflow (e.g. 'validate the plan with terraform validate / third-party linting, confirm quotas and pricing via provider tooling before quoting costs, and re-run checks after each design change') to create a validate-fix-retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Roughly half the body is a catalog of services and tools Claude already knows (EC2/Lambda/EKS, Kafka/Kinesis, Redis/Memcached, SOC2/HIPAA) plus a redundant 'Knowledge Base' section, so padding is pervasive across several sections rather than occasional. Not score 1 because nothing is actually explained — it lists rather than teaches — and the closing paragraph is genuinely lean. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There is no code, command, template, or concrete checklist anywhere in the body; the 'Response Approach' steps are abstract ('Analyze requirements', 'Consider security implications') and only the closing paragraph ('Start from workload, data classification, region, recovery objectives and budget; ... Verify current region availability, quotas and pricing') provides minimal concrete guidance. Not score 1 because that closing paragraph and the Example Interactions give high-level hints of real workflow shape; not score 3 because no executable specifics are provided for any common case. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An 8-step sequence exists in 'Response Approach', and checkpoints are present but only implicit — 'Verify current region availability, quotas and pricing before quoting costs' and 'compare a concrete architecture with assumptions and rollback/failure paths' are stated, yet the steps themselves are generic with no validate-fix-retry loop. Not score 4 because the individual steps are poorly defined and lack explicit checkpoints; not score 2 because a real sequence plus some verification guidance is present. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is consistently sectioned with headers, but there are no bundle files or any references to separate files; the ~60-line Capabilities catalog and Knowledge Base are inline content that would clearly belong in reference files. Not score 4 because nothing is offloaded to navigable external material (no references exist at all); not score 2 because the structure itself is present, consistent, and easy to scan. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |