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 an exceptionally lean, well-organized instruction-only skill with a coherent diagnostic workflow and explicit stop conditions. Its main weakness is actionability: the guidance is directional throughout, with no concrete output template, tooling hints, or worked example that would make the required artifacts (hypothesis log, evidence summary, decision tree) unambiguous.
Suggestions
Add a compact output template or example (e.g., a short filled-in example of the final report: observed evidence, diagnosed mechanism, unresolved references, prognosis) to make the 'Return compact but complete evidence' instruction concrete.
Specify how the explicit hypothesis log should be kept at each branch (e.g., one line per hypothesis with the disproof attempt and its result) so that standard is executable rather than directional.
Number the top-level workflow steps (reproduce → trace → hypothesize → conclude) so the sequence and its early-out checkpoints are explicit rather than implied by paragraph order.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every sentence is directive guidance ("Start at the observed effect and identify the code paths directly responsible", "Stop when required evidence is unavailable rather than filling gaps with guesses") with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Lean and efficient; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete direction exists ("Keep an explicit hypothesis at every branch and try to disprove it", "Distinguish observations, inferences, and unknowns", "Resolve every cited call frame") but there are no executable specifics — no commands, tooling, output template, or worked example showing what the hypothesis log or final report looks like. Not a 4 because the guidance stays directional rather than executable; not a 2 because several standards are concretely actionable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present (establish reproducibility → trace upward from the effect → hypothesis testing → return evidence) with explicit checkpoints ("If not, pause and report that result", "Stop when required evidence is unavailable") and a checklist section. Not a 5 because the ordering is implicit across prose rather than an explicitly marked sequence, and there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop; not a 3 because checkpoints are stated rather than missing. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is well-organized into focused sections (## Standards, ## Questions for every hypothesis) with no content that belongs in separate files. Per the scoring notes for simple, self-contained skills, this warrants a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |