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.
The body is a well-structured, professional instruction set with excellent progressive disclosure through conditionally-loaded, one-level-deep references and explicit validation checkpoints around editing and handoff. It falls slightly short of top marks on conciseness (two long optional-workflow sections) and actionability (no inline worked examples), and the overall task sequence is implied rather than explicitly enumerated.
Suggestions
Trim the 'Keep working notes when useful' and 'Delegate bounded tasks when useful' sections to their core directives (when to use them, what to record, what the main agent owns), cutting restatements of obvious practice such as 'Never include credentials or secrets'.
Add one compact before/after revision example inline (or a pointer to a specific example in editorial-standards.md) so the editorial rules are immediately actionable without opening the reference file.
State the end-to-end workflow as a short explicit sequence (e.g. establish the reader's task → verify claims against source → draft → edit → review the whole document → hand off) so the macro order does not have to be inferred from section ordering.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, directive prose with almost no concept explanation Claude already knows ("Lead with the answer or outcome", "Use numbered steps for ordered actions"), but the "Keep working notes" and "Delegate bounded tasks" sections run long and occasionally restate the obvious ("Never include credentials or secrets"), fitting "efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed" rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable rules are prevalent ("Match UI labels exactly and format them in bold", "Use inline code for file paths, commands, identifiers", "Do not use em dashes in newly written prose") plus a numbered 5-step editing procedure, but there are no inline worked examples (e.g. a before/after revision) or sample commands — those live in the bundle files — so guidance is mostly concrete with minor gaps rather than fully covering the common cases at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear macro sequence is present (establish the reader's task → ground the content → draft → edit with a reason → review → prepare the handoff) with explicit checkpoints ("Before returning work, verify that the reader's task is answered, claims retain their scope...") and an error-recovery loop ("When feedback identifies a regression, reassess the passage's purpose"), but the end-to-end order is implied by section ordering rather than stated as one explicit numbered sequence, fitting "clear sequence with most checkpoints present" rather than 5; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since this is a writing/editing skill. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview that delegates detail to three real one-level-deep reference files, each conditionally loaded with explicit signaling ("Read [editorial standards](references/editorial-standards.md) for every writing or editing task. Read [technical verification](references/technical-verification.md) when the work contains product claims, procedures, configuration, or code."), with no nested references in the bundle — matching the clear-overview, well-signaled-references anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |