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 efficiently written orchestrator: lean, well-sequenced, and with sensible safety boundaries (draft-only changes, explicit marking of missing inputs, unscored ineligible features). Its weakness is delegation without anchors — the operating contract, JSON contracts, and shared references are gestured at rather than named or located, leaving the executing agent to guess where the real audit content lives.
Suggestions
Name and path the shared references explicitly (e.g., list the actual filenames under ads/references/ for measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring) instead of 'relevant shared ... references', so the agent can navigate to them without guessing.
Locate the 'common JSON contracts' and the main 'ads' operating contract (a path or filename) so step 6's 'Return schema-valid findings' and step 1 are executable rather than implicit.
Add an explicit validation feedback loop for the returned findings (e.g., verify findings against the JSON contract and fix/re-validate before the conductor step), which would also lift workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no background on what Snapchat Ads or pixels are, no padded explanations, every line is an instruction, constraint, or output requirement. The path-resolution parenthetical is operational detail the skill needs, not padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps list concrete inputs to collect ("business objective, account age, date window, timezone, currency, spend, conversion definition") and a concrete file to read, but key details are missing: the 'common JSON contracts' and the 'main `ads` operating contract' are never located, the 'relevant shared measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring references' are unnamed, and no referenced bundle files exist in the skill directory. The guidance is only partially executable without guessing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step numbered procedure is clearly sequenced (read contract → collect inputs → read audit reference → normalize → evaluate → return findings → render report) with real checkpoints ("Return schema-valid findings", "Keep all account changes as drafts until the main mutation gate passes"). It stops short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit validate-and-fix feedback loop, and the evaluation step ('Evaluate only applicable controls') relies on external checklists rather than inline guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The main reference is well signaled with explicit resolution rules ("Read `ads/references/snapchat-audit.md` (resolve it from the plugin root, ...)"), but the 'shared measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring references' are never named or pathed, and no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist in the bundle to navigate to. Navigation beyond the single named file is implicit, matching 'references present but not clearly signaled'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |