Content
86%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, policy-dense contract: it maps each operation to its MCP tool, gates the destructive delete behind exact-object preview and explicit confirmation, and delegates the full authorization matrix to a clearly signaled external reference. It would benefit from a worked example of one or two common tool calls and a brief post-deletion verification step.
Suggestions
Add one short example tool call (e.g., a create_inbox payload with username, domain, display name, and a stable client ID) to cover the most common case end-to-end.
Include a post-deletion verification step, such as re-running list_inboxes to confirm the inbox is gone, closing the feedback loop on the destructive operation.
Briefly state what to do when a create or update call fails (e.g., report the MCP error verbatim and stop) so error recovery is defined rather than implicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~38-line body is lean and every section carries non-obvious information (tool-specific semantics like metadata merge/null-removal, confirmation invalidation rules, scope-narrowing guardrails). Nothing re-explains concepts Claude already knows, so it matches the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance names the exact MCP tools (`list_inboxes`, `create_inbox`, `update_inbox`, `delete_inbox`) with concrete parameter guidance ("Pass a requested username, verified domain, display name, metadata, and client ID when supplied") and specific return fields. It is mostly executable, but no worked example calls cover the common cases, which the top anchor expects. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The destructive delete has an explicit validation gate ("only after showing the exact inbox ID/address and receiving explicit confirmation") plus an invalidation rule ("Changed target/scope invalidates confirmation"), so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. Minor gaps remain: no post-action verification (e.g., re-listing to confirm deletion) and no error-recovery guidance for failed calls, which keeps it below the feedback-loop/checklist anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files needed, the body is organized into clear Workflow, Authorization, and Guardrails sections and inlines only the contract rows, pointing to the full matrix one level deep in an external skill ("The full matrix and threat model live in the `agent-email-patterns` skill (`references/threat-model.md`)"). This matches the simple-skill exception for a top score with well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |