Content
81%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 well-structured multi-phase research workflow with strong sequencing, explicit validation feedback loops, and lean directive prose. The main limitations are actionability contingent on sibling skills and a monolithic file that inlines content that could be split into references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, using directive phrasing ('Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline', 'Move, don't refetch') with only minor instances of explanation that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Although no code is present, the guidance is concrete and specific for an instruction-only workflow ('use an installed search plugin (e.g., PipeLLM)', 'every URL goes through /read', 'Target: 5-10 sources'), with only minor gaps since execution depends on sibling skills. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six phases are clearly sequenced with ordered substeps (Phase 1: Discover → Fetch → File), explicit feedback loops (Phase 4 stall signals routing back to Phase 2), a two-pass self-review validation step, and a Hard Rules/Gotchas checklist; the operation is research/synthesis, so the destructive-batch cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single self-contained file is organized with clear section headers and one-level-deep inline references to /read and /write, but at ~115 lines with substantial inlined material (Canonical Article Mode, distillation guidance) it shows minor organization gaps versus a fully split structure. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |