Content
43%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 concise and well-sectioned but critically incomplete: it announces a 'Core Action Sequence' and then stops before stating the action. The existing trajectory reference is also never linked from the body. The skill is currently not executable as written.
Suggestions
Complete the 'Core Action Sequence' with the concrete action to execute (e.g. the exact `take <obj> from <recep>` command) so the skill is actionable rather than trailing off.
Add a verification/confirmation checkpoint referencing the expected success observation (e.g. 'You pick up the {obj} from the {recep}') to sequence the workflow with a feedback loop.
Link the existing references/trajectory_example.md from the body (e.g. under an 'Example' section) so the bundled reference is clearly signaled rather than orphaned.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding or over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows ('Visual Confirmation', 'Proximity' prerequisites are terse). It is efficient rather than fully tight because the document trails off mid-instruction, so a couple of tokens do not yet 'earn their place', keeping it at the 4-anchor rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The body declares 'Execute the following action precisely:' but provides no action afterward — the core executable step is missing. This matches the 2-anchor ('high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'); it is above 1 because prerequisites give some concrete framing, but below 3 since there is no executable code or command. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists (Prerequisites, then Core Action Sequence) but the action sequence is a dangling colon with no defined step and no validation/confirmation checkpoint. This fits the 2-anchor ('rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined') rather than 3, which would require listed steps with only validation gaps. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers (Instructions, Prerequisites, Core Action Sequence) give some structure, and a bundle file exists at references/trajectory_example.md. Per the rubric's bundle-structure guidance, that reference is present but never signaled or linked from the body, matching the 3-anchor ('references present but not clearly signaled'). | 3 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |