Content
82%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-engineered orchestration body: executable command, documented data contract, explicit untrusted-input handling, and concrete output templates. Weaknesses are limited to duplicated link-graph/freshness coverage between Step 2's layers and Steps 4-5, an unspecified failed-parse disposition, and inline per-layer detail that the referenced sibling files could absorb.
Suggestions
Collapse the orphan/dead-end and freshness material into one place — either keep only the Step 4/5 process detail and trim the Link Health and Freshness Check layers in Step 2 to one-line pointers, or vice versa.
Specify what to do when a result carries an error field (e.g., 'list failed-parse files in the report with their error and exclude them from averages') so the batch failure path is explicit.
Move the per-layer SEO/schema checklist detail into a referenced file (e.g., the existing quality-scoring.md companion) and keep only the layer summary plus the pointer in SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive with no concept explanations, but orphan/dead-end link-graph detection and freshness checking each appear twice — once as layers under Step 2 ("Detect orphan pages (zero inbound internal links)" / "Flag freshness by content type") and again as full Steps 4 and 5. That is minor duplication that could be trimmed, matching the 4-anchor rather than the fully-lean 5-anchor; it is tighter than the 3-anchor's broader unnecessary explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The analyzer invocation is copy-paste ready with an absolute-path guard, the analyzer's JSON contract is documented field-by-field ("Each result has `file`, an object `score`... a file that failed to parse carries an `error` field"), and report templates give exact table columns and filenames ("reports/blog-audit-YYYY-MM-DD.md"). Specific examples cover the common cases, matching the 5-anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced steps with several checkpoints: ask-on-empty ("If no blog files are found... ask for an allow-listed root"), skip reporting ("SKIPPED: credentials unavailable"), and a no-overwrite guard ("Do not overwrite a previous audit report"). Minor validation gap keeps it at 4: the disposition of files whose results "carry an `error` field instead" is never specified (report, exclude, or retry), so one feedback path is implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are one level deep, clearly signaled, and load-bearing ("Read the main reference `orchestration-details.md` before loading project context"; bucket edges delegated to the quality-scoring.md "Thresholds" table with "do not change them here"). No local bundle files exist, and some per-layer check detail (SEO item thresholds, schema entity list) is inlined that could live in those references — good structure with minor organization gaps, i.e. the 4-anchor rather than the cleanly-split 5-anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |