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 lean, well-sequenced instruction skill: clear steps, a user checkpoint, a concrete anti-pattern for skill creation, and an explicit stop condition. Its shortfalls are minor — a little motivational padding and the absence of a concrete decomposition example or an explicit validation checkpoint before handing back.
Suggestions
Trim the coaching asides in 'Propose the split' and 'Result' (e.g. 'This is the moment to make the benefit visible') to tighten conciseness without losing the lead-with-value instruction.
Add a brief concrete before/after example of one split (oversized skill name → two focused verb-named skills with their own triggers) to lift actionability from mostly to fully concrete.
Add one explicit validation checkpoint before step 4, e.g. 'confirm each new skill triggers independently and none duplicates another's trigger before handing back to build-composition', to close the workflow-clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence — no explaining of concepts Claude already knows — but a few coaching asides could be trimmed, e.g. 'This is the moment to make the benefit visible' and 'that independence is a big part of why decomposition was worth it', which slightly pad the 'Result' and 'Propose' sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable for an instruction-only skill: 'Create each focused skill as `skills/<name>/SKILL.md` directly (do **not** run `tessl skill new`...)', 'Move shared depth into `references/`', 'a verb-form skill name', plus an explicit rule-vs-skill routing rule. Minor gaps remain — no worked before/after example of a decomposition and no concrete template for the proposed structure shown to the user. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps are clearly sequenced (spot seams → propose split → restructure → hand back to build-composition) with a user checkpoint in step 2 and an explicit 'When to stop' section, plus a deliberately deferred verification ('Do not run evals here'). Not score 5 because there is no explicit validation checkpoint on the restructured output before handoff. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist), so per the simple-skill guidance well-organized sections suffice. Sections are short, headed, and ordered by workflow phase; the sibling-skill mentions (build-composition, skill-optimizer) are contextual cross-references, not buried navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |