Content
77%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-orchestrated interactive workflow with excellent sequencing, mandatory validation checkpoints, and just-in-time one-level-deep reference loading. The main weakness is token cost from repeated content — reprinted checklists, thrice-stated preview disclosures, and compatibility rules duplicated from the matrix file.
Suggestions
Define the progress checklist once and refer to it thereafter ('update the checklist: mark [Scan your project] complete') instead of reprinting the four-line block after every step.
State the four public-preview disclosure requirements once in a short Step 4a subsection and reference it from the two Step 3 mentions, rather than repeating them three times.
Split the ~200-word Step 3 SaaS guardrail paragraph into a bulleted rule list, and drop the inline BLOCKED-combination enumerations in Step 4a that duplicate compatibility-matrix.md, keeping only the instruction to cross-check the matrix.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Nearly all of the body is non-obvious domain rule-making rather than concepts Claude already knows, but there is noticeable redundancy: the four-line progress checklist is reprinted verbatim four times, the public-preview disclosure requirements are repeated nearly word-for-word in Step 3 and twice more in Step 4a, and the Step 3 SaaS guardrail is a single ~200-word run-on paragraph. Mostly efficient but clearly could be tightened — anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact question scripts with numbered options, specific Grep patterns ("connected_account", "transfers.create", "account.updated"), exact warning copy with links, and precise BLOCKED/CAUTION handling with a worked mechanism example. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: "If the platform fee ... appears low" gives no threshold, and the Step 1e findings table is left as placeholders. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0-6 are clearly sequenced with a progress checklist updated after each phase, a MANDATORY compatibility validation before any recommendation is presented, a fee-structure checkpoint before Step 4, and explicit feedback loops (BLOCKED → corrected configuration → re-run; codebase/research discrepancy → ask user to clarify). This directly matches the anchor for explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Eight reference files (terminology-rules, company-researcher, decision-matrix, discovery-questions, account-types, charge-patterns, compatibility-matrix, recommendation-template) all verified present, real, and one level deep — no reference points to further references. Each is clearly signaled with 'Read <references/...>' exactly at the workflow point where it is needed, and the body retains only orchestration and guardrails, matching the clear-overview anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |