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 interactive workflow: sequencing, validation gates, feedback loops, and copy-ready scripts are exemplary, and reference files are real, well-signaled, and one level deep. The main cost is token duplication — compatibility and public-preview rules are stated in full both inline and in the reference files the body itself designates as the source of truth.
Suggestions
In Step 4a, replace the inline BLOCKED/ALLOWED enumeration with the short rule already present ("Read <references/compatibility-matrix.md> and cross-check the proposed combination") plus the required output format for a BLOCKED warning, since the matrix file is the designated source of truth.
State the four Express public-preview disclosure requirements once (Step 4a) and have the Step 3 guardrail reference them instead of restating them, removing one of the two full lists.
Show the progress checklist once at Step 0 and once at completion, updating intermediate steps by noting only the newly checked item instead of reprinting all four lines at every step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean instruction (question scripts, decision rules, exact warning copy) but duplicates itself: the Express public-preview disclosure requirements appear in full in both Step 3 ("include a concise public-preview disclosure... require the current Connect preview API version... recommend enabling Radar... confirm during discovery") and again in Step 4a items, and the Step 4a BLOCKED/ALLOWED enumeration re-inlines rules that <references/compatibility-matrix.md> exists to hold. The full progress checklist is also reprinted five times. Not 2: it never explains concepts Claude already knows — the padding is self-repetition, not filler. Not 4: the duplication is more than minor trimming. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable for an instruction-only skill: exact AskUserQuestion scripts and option labels ("Looks good" / "Change something" / "Explain more about the options"), copy-ready warning text with links, concrete field-value conditions ("If `dashboard: "full"` + `fees_collector: "stripe"` + charge pattern is `destination` or `separate`, treat as BLOCKED"), and specific grep patterns for the codebase scan ("`connected_account`, `account_id`, `stripe_account`"). Nothing remains abstract; even edge responses are pre-scripted. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–6 are explicitly sequenced with sub-steps (1a–1f, 4a–4b), a visible progress checklist updated at each stage, and mandatory validation before presentation: "Step 4a — Compatibility validation (MANDATORY before presenting recommendation)", the fee-structure checkpoint before Step 4, the merchant-of-record consistency check, and fee economics "ALWAYS runs, even on auto-filled values". Feedback loops are explicit — BLOCKED configs get a mechanism explanation and "re-run the recommendation with the corrected configuration", and codebase/research discrepancies trigger user clarification. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All 8 body references (`references/terminology-rules.md`, `company-researcher.md`, `decision-matrix.md`, `discovery-questions.md`, `compatibility-matrix.md`, `charge-patterns.md`, `account-types.md`, `recommendation-template.md`) exist and are well-signaled with "Read <references/...>" at point of use, one level deep (verified: the reference files link to Stripe public docs, not to nested skill files). Not 5: the body still inlines substantial decision detail that belongs in those references — the Step 4a compatibility enumeration duplicates compatibility-matrix.md and the long SaaS guardrail in Step 3 duplicates discovery-questions.md content. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |