Content
96%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 dense, high-signal playbook: it leads with the critical domain distinction (cadastre vs land registry), maps every common question to a concrete tool invocation, and bakes in error-handling feedback loops. The only structural weakness is that all reference-grade detail lives inline in SKILL.md rather than being split into a reference file.
Suggestions
Move the Response shaping detail-level semantics and the error_type taxonomy into a one-level-deep reference file (e.g. references/response-shaping.md), keeping SKILL.md to the register-choice guidance, the tool playbook, and a short pointer.
The Notes section mixes provenance/citation rules with data-semantics notes (name_normalized, entry fields); splitting field-level documentation into its own reference would shorten the body further.
Consider a short worked example (one reference in, key fields out) for the most common flow — get_parcel then get_lr_unit on a portfolio — so the two-step pattern is unmistakable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line conveys project-specific knowledge Claude cannot know (register distinctions, tool semantics, error taxonomy, paging behavior) with no padding and no explanations of general concepts. The writing is terse to the point of density — every token earns its place — matching the 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Each question type maps to a concrete tool call with parameter shapes, e.g. 'get_lr_unit with {"lr_unit_number": "769", "main_book_id": 21277}' and 'get_parcel with source="cadastre"'. For an instruction-only skill this fully covers the common cases (owners, portfolios, building parcels, register comparison, assemblies, geometry, neighbours), matching the 5 anchor's standard of specific, ready-to-use guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step sequences are explicit (portfolio: one get_parcel call, then one get_lr_unit call with returned references) and validation/recovery checkpoints are built in: check the register field, read status/error_type instead of retrying blindly, 'use a per-sheet level with a limit instead of retrying full', and 'an empty answer is not proof the sheet does not exist'. This matches the 5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and navigable (register choice, tool playbook, response shaping, notes), but the ~112-line body keeps all operational detail — the error_type taxonomy, detail-level semantics, and paging rules — inline with no bundle files to offload it. The under-50-lines exception for a 5 does not apply, and some of the API-level detail (Response shaping, error handling) would fit naturally in a one-level-deep reference file, so the 4 anchor ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps') is the best fit. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |