Content
92%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.
The body is a tightly written decision router: a short question checklist feeds an unambiguous first-match table, with a clear boundary statement that it delegates all rules to the gate skills. Structure and conciseness are strong; the only mild weakness is that execution relies on the sibling gate skills rather than self-contained steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: a one-line intro, four diagnostic questions, a decision table, and a two-line boundary note, with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The decision table maps each state to a specific action ('Write it', 'Run /comms-prep', 'Run /comms-review', 'Deliver the draft') with a clear first-match rule; minor gap because actual execution depends on the gate skills' own behavior rather than fully self-contained steps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is unambiguous: answer four questions, then take the first matching table row; as a single-purpose router with no destructive or batch operation, the simple-skill exception applies and the decision flow needs no validation checkpoints. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external bundle files (rules live in the gate skills), and well-organized into heading, questions, table, and closing note; sibling-skill references (/comms-prep, /comms-review) are one level deep and clearly signaled. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |