Content
85%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 well-structured dispatcher skill: the body stays at overview altitude with a fully specified inline debrief workflow (the piece with no natural deep-reference home), and every deep reference is real, substantive, and one level deep. The main costs are modest token redundancy — stage lists and citations each appear twice, with brief rationale passages explaining biases Claude already knows — and the absence of any inline worked example for the artifact-authoring stages.
Suggestions
Conciseness: cut the bias-research rationale sentences in the debrief steps (e.g., the anchoring-effect and inter-rater-reliability explanations) to bare one-line citations — Claude already knows these biases, and the operational rules (independent pre-submission, >1 spread flagging) carry the guidance on their own.
Conciseness: drop the duplicated stage enumeration — either the stage table or "The chain, end to end" section, not both — and fold the inline-cited URLs (Levashina, anchoring, employment interview) out of the body since the References section already lists them.
Actionability: inline one compact worked example — e.g., a single competency dimension with its four behavioural anchors, or a short trace of a flagged-dimension resolution — so the most common authoring tasks are executable without first opening a reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient — dense tables, imperative steps, concrete parameters ("6-8 slots", "spread greater than 1 point", "90-minute panel calibration session") — with only minor over-explanation: the anchoring-bias and inter-rater-reliability rationale sentences restate concepts Claude already knows, citations appear both inline and again in the References section, and the stage table plus "The chain, end to end" enumerate the same six stages twice. Not anchor 3: there are no padded blocks, and every section carries operational content. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The debrief workflow is fully executable — exact spread thresholds, per-dimension floor rules ("any dimension at 1 is a no-hire regardless of totals"), halt codes (INCOMPLETE_PANEL_SUBMISSION, MISSING_RUBRIC), a verbatim panelist question, and named pitfall categories — but stages 1-4 and 6 are summary-altitude dispatches whose executable detail lives entirely in the reference files, and no worked example (e.g., one rubric dimension with its four anchors) appears inline. Not anchor 5: the common non-debrief tasks are not copy-paste runnable from the body alone. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The debrief is a clearly sequenced 7-step process with explicit validation checkpoints (refusing to start without independently pre-submitted scores, flagging >1 spread dimensions, bias flags with re-scoring), halt conditions with named error codes, and a decision-rule finale; the anti-patterns table acts as a chain-level checklist. This matches anchor 5 — clear sequence, explicit validation steps, and feedback loops for error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview: a stage-to-reference table, per-stage summaries with concrete parameters, and the one workflow that must live in the main file (the debrief). All five referenced files exist, are substantive (177-272 lines each), and nest exactly one level deep — reference files link only to their siblings, never onward to a third layer. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |