Content
86%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill: an efficient contract, a clear sequenced workflow, and a concrete dispatch-card example. The main gaps are unshown action shapes for the post-dispatch operations and the absence of an explicit failed-job recovery loop.
Suggestions
Add a compact example (or field list) for the follow-up actions named in step 4 — status, logs, artifact retrieval, cancellation, release — so each is executable, not just named.
Add one explicit error-recovery step, e.g., 'If the job fails, read the returned logs, fix the script or packages, and dispatch a corrected job with a new name' to complete the validate-and-retry loop.
Clarify when action "plan" versus "start" is required with a one-line criterion, since step 2 currently leaves the choice to judgment.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: terse contract bullets ('Commands are ordinary shell commands inside /workspace, such as python analysis.py') and a single copy-paste JSON card, with no explanation of what Modal or GPUs are. Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The dispatch card example is concrete and executable (action/name/command/target/uploads/artifacts/packages with pinned versions), and upload/artifact globs are specified. However, the follow-up operations named in step 4 ('status, logs, artifacts, cancellation, delivery retry, or release') are only referenced, not shown in executable form, so it sits between 'mostly executable with minor gaps' (4) and fully copy-paste-ready coverage of common cases (5). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an inspection checkpoint (action: 'plan' before 'start') and post-run guidance to preserve failures and uncertainty, plus interruption handling ('keep the same job ID and inspect status later'). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit validate/fix/retry loop for a failed job, though verification states are reported — so the destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files; the single external pointer ('Read <compute-capability>') is clearly signaled and one level deep, and sections (Contract, Workflow, example) are well organized. Per the simple-skill exception, this matches the top anchor; it does not exhibit the inline-bloat or buried-reference patterns of anchors 3 and below. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |