Content
75%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-organized instruction-only skill body: ordered decision hierarchy, concrete definitions, explicit stop conditions, defined output shapes, and a verified, well-gated reference file. The main costs are near-verbatim repetition of the landed-cost component list and heavy doctrinal overlap with references/specification.md, which blur the overview/reference boundary.
Suggestions
State the landed-cost component list once (e.g., in 'Total delivered value') and have the 'Rules that decide the answer' entry reference it instead of repeating it nearly verbatim.
Cut doctrinal material duplicated in references/specification.md (north-star question, procurement rules detail) down to one-line summaries with a pointer, tightening both conciseness and the overview/reference split.
Add a minimal usage sketch for 'contract/src/landed-cost.ts' (function signature or one call example) so the money-computation directive is executable without opening the file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, domain-specific doctrine Claude would not know (savings hierarchy, urgency bands, evidence/confidence levels) and mostly assumes competence, but it is noticeably repetitive: the landed-cost component list appears nearly verbatim twice ('Add origin shipping... brokerage, currency conversion, payment fees, final-mile delivery, and the expected cost of a return' at line 50 and again at line 86), and the north-star question and other spec material is restated. Below 5 for this duplication; above 3 because the padding is rhetorical repetition, not explanation of things Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, instruction-grade guidance throughout: an ordered 9-level savings hierarchy, exact urgency definitions ('Soon means within three days: local and domestic online'), defined evidence levels (A primary, B strong secondary, C useful secondary, D discovery only), money as integer cents via 'contract/src/landed-cost.ts', and an explicit tool directive ('score that match with typesafe/jev-1.13 on https://openrouter.ai/api/alpha/decisions... Do not use typesafe/jev-router'). It falls short of 5 because referenced code and tools are given no interface or usage example, leaving execution details to lookup. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'Run a case' gives a clear ordered sequence: the 9-step savings hierarchy ('Work the savings hierarchy in order and stop at the first level that meets the need'), then the named research phases, then the research pillars ('Leave a pillar unknown rather than filling it in'), then explicit stop conditions ('End when a stop condition is met and name it: sufficiently resolved, diminishing returns, evidence ceiling, identity unresolved, constraint blocked, or effort exceeded'), then three enumerated return shapes. Not 5 because the checkpoints are stopping rules rather than validate-fix-retry feedback loops, and the research phases are only named in the body, not sequenced here. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure against the actual bundle: the single reference 'references/specification.md' is real (verified, 529 lines), clearly signaled, one level deep, and gated by a concrete read condition ('Read it before a recommendation that is more than one landed-cost comparison') plus a precedence rule ('If this file and the specification disagree, the specification wins'). Below 5 because the body inlines substantial doctrine (north-star question, savings hierarchy, landed-cost detail, return formats) that substantially duplicates the specification, making the split between overview and reference less clean than a pure pointer model. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |