Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, actionable, and well-structured with a clear worked example, and the bundle includes a real one-level reference. The only gap is the absence of an explicit validation/feedback loop for a potentially destructive environmental action.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step after 'Interpret Result' (e.g., if the observation indicates failure or an unexpected state, re-confirm the target name or re-acquire the tool and retry) to create a validate-fix-retry feedback loop.
Link the existing references/example_trajectory.md from the body (e.g., a 'See also' line) so the one-level reference is clearly signaled rather than present-but-unlinked.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with tight sections, a compact actions table, and no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands (`pick up OBJ`, `use thermometer on metal fork`) plus a worked example with the actual observation string, making guidance copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step sequence is clearly ordered with an inventory prerequisite, but for an environment-modifying (potentially destructive) action there is no explicit validate/retry feedback loop after "Interpret Result", capping it at 2 per the rubric guideline. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short single-purpose skill under 50 lines with well-organized sections and a real one-level-deep reference file (references/example_trajectory.md) present in the bundle, meeting the simple-skill bar for full marks. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |