Content
71%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 an exceptionally lean, well-structured orchestrator procedure that defers all domain detail to external references, which is the right shape for this skill type. However, the evaluation guidance itself is abstract, the shared reference targets lack concrete paths, and the multi-root path-resolution instructions add friction rather than clear navigation.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete evaluation examples (e.g., a specific control check with its evidence source and pass/fail criterion) so the 'Evaluate applicable controls' step is executable rather than abstract.
Replace the category-only reference mention with the actual paths or filenames of the shared measurement, benchmark, creative, automation, policy, and scoring references so navigation is unambiguous.
Simplify the path-resolution parenthetical for ads/references/linkedin-audit.md into a short, deterministic resolution rule, and add a brief fallback step if the file cannot be found.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~34-line body is all imperative instruction with zero concept explanation or padding — every token (input checklist, boundaries, output contracts) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | There is some concrete guidance (a specific input list — "objective, conversion definition, account and campaign age, geography, date window, timezone, currency, spend, targets" — and a named file to read), but the core evaluation step is abstract ("Evaluate applicable controls covering measurement...") with no commands, thresholds, criteria, or examples of how to evaluate anything. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight clearly sequenced steps with real checkpoints ("Return schema-valid findings", "Keep every account change as a draft until the main mutation gate passes", "Mark uncertainty and contradictions"), but there is no explicit error-recovery or re-validation feedback loop for the level-5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clean and detail is appropriately deferred, but the shared references are named only by category ("the relevant shared measurement, benchmark, creative, automation, policy, and scoring references" — no paths), the path-resolution parenthetical is convoluted, and none of the referenced files exist in this skill's bundle, so navigation to the actual content is not clearly signaled. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |