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 highly actionable, well-structured skill body: the section skeleton, blame-language rewrites, action-item discipline, and fully worked SEV-2 example leave no ambiguity about execution. The main cost is token efficiency — repeated SRE quotations and citations could be cut — and the duplicated skeleton blurs the split between body and reference.
Suggestions
Collapse the three Overview block quotes from Google SRE into one short quote plus a single citation; cite the source once and drop the repeated "Per [google-sre-postmortem]" markers throughout (conciseness).
In Step 1, list only the section names and point to the template for the per-section guidance, removing the duplication between the body and references/post-mortem-document-template.md (progressive_disclosure).
Add an explicit feedback loop in Step 2/4 — e.g., "if reviewers reject blame language or withhold sign-off, revise and re-submit" — and move the 5-business-day authoring deadline into the Step 1 workflow (workflow_clarity).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly operational but repeats itself: the Google SRE source is block-quoted three times in the Overview, "Per [google-sre-postmortem]" is cited roughly eight times, and "Postmortems are not punishment" appears in both the Overview and Step 2. This is more than the "minor instances" of the 4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: an exact 9-section skeleton, concrete before/after blame-language rewrites ("Bob deployed without testing" → "The pre-deploy testing didn't cover the null-metadata case"), four required action-item fields, a storage layout with a naming convention, and a completely filled worked example with tables. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced with checkpoints (reviewer rejection criteria in Step 2, sign-off and closure conditions in Step 4), but there is no explicit fix-and-re-review feedback loop, and the "author within 5 business days" rule lives only in the anti-patterns table rather than in the workflow itself. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | One clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/post-mortem-document-template.md, verified to exist) with well-organized sections. Minor gaps: the full section skeleton is duplicated between Step 1 and the reference template, and the ~70-line worked example keeps the overview body long. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |