Content
78%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 concise, well-structured MCP-wrapper skill with concrete safety/decision rules and an explicit destructive-action confirmation checkpoint. The main weakness is mild redundancy between the description and the Common Capabilities list.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explaining what email or MCP is), but the 'Common Capabilities' bullet list substantially re-lists actions already named in the frontmatter description, adding mild redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable behavioral rules ('summarize the intended action and get user confirmation before calling the tool', 'Prefer creating or updating drafts before sending when ... ambiguous', 'ask which account to use'), with only minor gaps such as no example confirmation prompt. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five clearly sequenced workflow steps with an explicit validation checkpoint for destructive/write actions in step 3 (confirmation gate) and a safe-default in step 4; minor gap is the lack of an explicit retry/re-confirm loop after a failed tool call. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, organized into clearly labeled sections (Workflow, Common Capabilities, Safety Notes) — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top progressive_disclosure score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |