Content
81%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-engineered orchestration workflow: every step has concrete scripts, options, and validation gates, and all detailed decision logic is properly pushed into eight real, one-level-deep reference files. The main cost is token efficiency — repeated checklists, duplicated public-preview disclosure language, and one enormous compound guardrail sentence — plus some overlap between Step 4a rules and the compatibility matrix reference.
Suggestions
State the progress checklist once ("after each step, mark its line complete and re-show the checklist") instead of repeating the four-line block four times, saving ~20 lines.
Consolidate the public-preview disclosure requirements (currently repeated in the Step 3 SaaS guardrail and Step 4a items) into a single rule, and break the ~200-word SaaS/direct-charge guardrail sentence into a short bulleted decision list.
Move Step 4a's enumerated compatibility rules into compatibility-matrix.md and keep only "read the matrix; BLOCKED → warn + fix + re-run; CAUTION → warn" in SKILL.md to eliminate the duplication.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with non-obvious domain policy rather than concepts Claude already knows, but it can be tightened: the four-line progress checklist is repeated verbatim four times, the public-preview disclosure requirements appear in both Step 3 guardrails and two Step 4a items, and the SaaS/direct-charge guardrail is a single ~200-word run-on sentence. This matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) better than anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable instruction guidance: exact question scripts ("Tell me about your business. Pick whichever is easiest:"), numbered option sets with defined outcomes, verbatim warning copy ("Your platform fee might be below Stripe's processing fees..."), concrete field names (dashboard, fees_collector, losses_collector, application_fee_amount), named embedded components, and specific links. This is copy-paste-ready guidance for an instruction-only skill, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–6 are explicitly sequenced with a visible progress checklist, mandatory validation checkpoints ("Step 4a — Compatibility validation (MANDATORY before presenting recommendation)", fee-economics check that "ALWAYS runs, even on auto-filled values"), and explicit feedback loops (BLOCKED combination → recommended fix → "re-run the recommendation with the corrected configuration"; "re-ask the relevant question"). This matches anchor 5's clear sequence with validation and error-recovery loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an orchestration overview that delegates all heavy detail to eight clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (terminology-rules, company-researcher, decision-matrix, discovery-questions, account-types, charge-patterns, compatibility-matrix, recommendation-template), and all eight verified to exist. The gap keeping it from 5: Step 4a's compatibility rules substantially duplicate content that also lives in compatibility-matrix.md, splitting one concern across two places. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |