Content
75%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, lean instruction skill with a concrete question template and a clear round-based workflow terminating in a confirmation gate. It could improve by adding explicit section headers and spelling out recovery behavior when a round's answers are ambiguous.
Suggestions
Add section headers (e.g., '## Question format', '## Rounds & frontier', '## Ending the session') to make the body scannable.
Specify what to do when a user's answer is ambiguous or contradicts a prior decision, so the recovery path is explicit rather than implied.
Tighten the design-tree/frontier framing by collapsing the definitional sentences into a brief glossary line to reduce conceptual overhead.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and task-specific with no generic padding, but introduces non-trivial conceptual scaffolding (design tree, frontier, rounds) that could be trimmed slightly, fitting the 'efficient with minor over-explanation' anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste-ready question template (❓ Q1 block with recommended answer) and concrete delegation rules; as an instruction-only skill the guidance is actionable with only minor gaps in coverage of edge cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The round/frontier procedure is clearly sequenced (ask frontier → wait → recompute → next round → end when frontier empty → confirm before acting) with a termination condition and confirmation gate, but lacks explicit error-recovery checkpoints. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short self-contained body with no external references needed and a clear logical flow, but it lacks explicit section headers, leaving minor organization gaps relative to the 'well-organized sections' top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |