Content
61%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-organized, example-rich body with genuinely useful operational tools (audit table, diagnostic, scoring bands) and a real, properly linked one-level-deep reference bundle. Its weaknesses are verbosity — it re-teaches the well-known SUCCESs framework and duplicates reference content — and an ambiguous evaluation workflow built around two unreconciled scoring systems.
Suggestions
Trim each of the six principle sections to a brief summary (core concept plus one or two examples) and push the detailed techniques and tables into the existing reference files — Claude already knows the Made to Stick framework, so the body only needs the operational application.
Reconcile the two scoring systems into one explicit numbered workflow (audit each principle → compute score → identify gaps → provide improvements to reach 10/10), since the current 0-10 overall score and the 50-60 audit sum are presented without explanation of how they relate.
Remove the duplicated "Applying SUCCESs to Product" and "The Curse of Knowledge" sections in favor of short pointers to applications.md and curse-of-knowledge.md, keeping the body focused on the audit-and-improve procedure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The style is dense and table-driven with no padded prose, but it re-explains at length a framework Claude already knows well (Commander's Intent, Velcro theory, Sinatra Test, the Mother Teresa principle are all from a famous bestselling book) and duplicates material that also lives in the reference files (each principle section, "Applying SUCCESs to Product" vs applications.md, "The Curse of Knowledge" vs curse-of-knowledge.md). Mostly efficient but could be tightened considerably. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: a scoring directive ("rate 0-10... Always provide current score and improvements to reach 10/10"), before/after transformation tables, a per-principle audit table with scoring bands, and an if-no→action diagnostic. Falls short of a 5 only because the pieces are never assembled into one worked example of the audit applied to a real message. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The evaluation procedure exists (audit table → score → band; diagnostic with corrective actions), but the sequence is implicit and scattered across sections, and two competing scoring systems appear without reconciliation — a 0-10 overall score in the Scoring section vs a six-principle 1-10 audit summing to 60. Checkpoints are missing or implicit rather than explicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All nine referenced files exist, are one level deep, clearly listed with descriptions in a Reference Files section, and linked from each principle section — good structure and easy navigation. Not a 5 because the split is not clean: the body inlines substantial detail that is also expanded in the references (principle sections, applications, curse of knowledge). | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |