Content
83%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 an efficient, highly actionable overview with executable commands and a clear step sequence, backed by a real, well-placed reference and script bundle. Its main weakness is the absence of any validation or verification step in the batch generation workflow, which caps workflow clarity, plus under-signaled resource pointers.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step to the workflow, e.g. 'Verify outputs: check strategy_drafts/run_manifest.json and run scripts/tests/test_design_strategy_drafts.py before hand-off', with a fix-and-retry loop for failures.
Signal what each bundled resource provides, e.g. 'Draft YAML structure: see references/strategy_draft_schema.md' instead of bare paths in Resources.
Reconcile script paths with the bundle layout (scripts/design_strategy_drafts.py) or note that the skills/ prefix applies at deployment time, so navigation is unambiguous in both contexts.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence: short Overview/When to Use/Prerequisites/Output sections, a terse 7-step workflow, and two copy-paste commands with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor rather than the 4 anchor, which expects trimmable over-explanation that is absent here. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Two complete, executable commands with all flags (--concepts, --output-dir, --exportable-tickets-dir, --risk-profile) cover the two common cases (drafts only, drafts plus tickets), and concrete parameter names (HYPOTHESIS_EXIT_OVERRIDES, RR_FLOOR=1.5, risk profiles) give exact operating detail. This matches 'fully executable; copy-paste ready commands covering the common cases'; a 4 would require minor gaps in the commands themselves. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7 steps form a clear sequence, but this is a batch generation operation (per-concept variant files) with no validation/verification step (e.g., checking run_manifest.json or running scripts/tests), and the only checkpoint ('Clamp reward-to-risk at RR_FLOOR=1.5 to prevent C5 review failures') is implicit rather than a validate-and-retry loop. Per the rubric's cap for batch operations without validation feedback loops, workflow clarity cannot exceed 3; it is not 2 because the sequence itself is complete and well-defined. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that points to real one-level-deep bundle files (references/strategy_draft_schema.md and scripts/design_strategy_drafts.py, both present in the bundle), keeping bulk detail out of SKILL.md. Not 5 because the Resources entries are bare paths without signaling what each file provides ('See X for the draft schema'), and the script paths use the deployed skills/ prefix while the bundle layout is scripts/, a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |