A concise, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clear sequenced workflow, validation checkpoint, and copy-paste output template. The main gap is actionability: the workflow describes what to do in abstract terms rather than giving fully concrete, executable guidance.

Suggestions

Make the workflow steps more concrete — e.g. specify what "validate against current primary sources" means in practice (check the vendor doc, confirm the version, cite the URL) rather than leaving it as an abstract directive.

Add one short worked example showing a raw condition transformed into the final constraint + implications format so the desired output is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean — workflow, accuracy rules, and an output template with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	The output format is a copy-paste-ready template and the accuracy rules are specific, but the workflow steps are abstract verbs ("Identify", "Validate", "Narrow", "Separate") and "validate against current primary sources" gives no concrete how.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Six clearly sequenced steps include an explicit validation checkpoint (step 2) and the accuracy rules function as a checklist; this is not a destructive/batch operation so no error-recovery feedback loop is required.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clear sections (Workflow, Accuracy rules, Output format), matching the simple-skill allowance for a top score.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A tight, well-targeted description that clearly states capability and trigger conditions with an explicit "Use when" clause. Trigger-term naturalness is the weakest point, leaning slightly toward domain jargon over plain user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add plain-language trigger terms a user would naturally say (e.g. "requirement", "rule", "limitation") alongside the more technical "technical invariant" / "fixed condition".

Consider including the word "constraint" itself in the "Use when" clause, since that is the term the skill is built around.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Validate and write a concise constraint" names two concrete, comprehensive actions for this domain, matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor rather than the partial anchor below.	3 / 3
Completeness	It states what ("Validate and write a concise constraint") and an explicit when ("Use when Codex needs to turn..."), satisfying both halves with an explicit trigger.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The "Use when" clause lists "external platform limitation, technical invariant, policy, dependency, or other fixed condition" — relevant keywords, but "technical invariant" and "fixed condition" are jargon-ish and common variations like "requirement" or "rule" are missing.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche — turning fixed conditions into sourced constraints with implications — is narrow with distinct triggers unlikely to collide with other skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

26 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation