Content
61%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, token-efficient overview body that correctly offloads bulk material to a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference. Its weaknesses are the absence of any executable code or commands and of an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints in the body itself, both delegated to the guide.
Suggestions
Add a brief topic map of the detailed guide's sections (e.g. 'Patterns: sandboxed environment, browser-use, user confirmation, action logging; Sharp edges; Latency') so focused readers can jump directly, lifting progressive disclosure to the top anchor.
Inline one minimal executable anchor — e.g. the Dockerfile sandbox skeleton or a short tool-call schema example — so the body's actionability does not depend entirely on loading the 1759-line guide.
State the top-level operating sequence explicitly in the body (authorize → sandbox → act with budgets → verify observable postcondition), so workflow clarity stands alone even before the guide is read.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~40-line body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows and delegates all reference material to the guide. Minor trimming is possible — the opening paragraph restates the frontmatter description verbatim, and the 'User mentions or implies:' prefix repeats across all ten trigger bullets — matching the 4 anchor rather than the 5 anchor's 'every token earns its place'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The body gives some concrete guidance — a specific file to read ('Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill') and specific validation requirements ('action schemas, finite coordinates within display bounds, key/button allowlists and text/scroll limits', 'time, step and spending budgets') — but contains no executable code or commands itself, matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor. It is not a 2 because the boundary directives are far more specific than high-level hints. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists (trigger check in When to Use, then read the guide, then enforce Implementation boundaries) and validation requirements are stated ('a reported success requires observable verification'), but the operational sequence and explicit checkpoints are delegated to the external guide. Per the rubric's guideline, a skill involving operations that can be destructive (controlling a real computer, typing, clicking) without an in-body validation sequence is capped at 3; it is not a 2 because validation is prominently addressed rather than absent. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle structure is sound: a single one-level-deep reference (references/detailed-guide.md, verified to exist and clearly sectioned), signaled in its own '## Detailed Guide' section with guidance on reading fully vs. loading relevant sections, and the body stays lean as an overview. It falls short of the 5 anchor because the body recommends focused section loading without naming the guide's sections (patterns, sharp edges, latency), so a focused reader must scan the full 1759-line file to navigate. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |