Content
82%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 dense, well-sequenced operational skill: concrete code for both invocation modes, explicit verification steps, and valuable boundary semantics (limits, ARCHIVE vs PAUSE, failure handling). The main improvements are showing SDK client construction and read/poll calls as code, specifying handling for UNCERTAIN/REJECT outcomes, and offloading per-mode API detail to reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: every line is operational, with no explanations of known concepts, and it carries only non-obvious domain semantics such as "Empty `applies_when` means applicable in every situation except `exception`, not unknown" and the semantic-indexing caveat. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance dominates: an executable SDK snippet, a complete JSON request body, and exact endpoints (POST /api/v1/rules/compile, GET /api/v1/tasks/{task_id}, GET /api/v1/content/read?uri=...&raw=true). Minor gaps: the SDK snippet assumes an already-constructed `client`, and polling/reading are named in prose rather than shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven numbered steps with explicit checkpoints: poll only until terminal status, inspect `result.operations`/`written_uris`/`write_result`, and verify saved Rule/Scenario file layout, plus check-before-retry guidance in Boundaries. It falls short of the top anchor because no recovery path is specified when results are UNCERTAIN or REJECT. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with clear Goal/Workflow/Boundaries sections and mode-specific subsections, and no bundle files exist to reference. At ~95 lines, the dual-mode API detail (SDK vs HTTP parameter shapes) could be split into one-level-deep reference files to keep the overview leaner, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |