Content
68%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 well-structured and actionable with concrete commands and storage paths, but its batch/destructive JSON mutations lack explicit validation or feedback loops, and the illustrative ASCII/JSON renderings add some token weight without behavioral guidance.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/confirmation checkpoints before destructive or batch JSON writes (e.g., verify the prospect exists, confirm status change before saving) to lift workflow_clarity above 3.
Trim or contextualize the decorative ASCII pipeline/list renderings and the full illustrative JSON record so every remaining token guides behavior.
Make the `/geo quick` and `/geo proposal` integrations explicit (what they return or where to find them) instead of relying on implied behavior from other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient reference table plus compact orchestration steps, but the decorative ASCII pipeline/list renderings and illustrative JSON record add length that does not guide Claude's behavior. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete numbered steps, exact file paths, and command syntax make the guidance executable; minor gaps are the implied (unshown) `/geo quick` and `/geo proposal` integrations and no sample read/write code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced but the destructive/batch JSON rewrites (status change, won/lost, note append) and 'new' creation lack explicit validation or confirmation checkpoints, capping the score at 3 per the destructive-operations rule. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections (Commands, Data Structure, Orchestration, Storage, Stage Definitions) with no nested references; minor gaps are that all content lives in one file and the audit/proposal sub-skills are referenced without links. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |