Content
75%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 solid, well-structured instruction-only skill: the research workflow is clearly phased, guidance is quantified and templated, and it stays lean without explaining general concepts. The main gaps are the unspecified data source for volume/difficulty and competitor rankings, implicit rather than explicit validation checkpoints, and mild padding (persona line, 'Why it matters' column).
Suggestions
Specify how to obtain volume, difficulty, and competitor-ranking data (which tool, API, or fallback to manual estimates) — currently Phase 1-2 assume data with no source.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint before delivering the strategy, e.g. 'Verify title/subtitle fit within 30 chars and the keyword field within 100 before presenting'.
Trim the persona preamble and the 'Why it matters' table column — both restate knowledge the phase guidance already conveys.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, domain-specific content (char limits, indexing rules) that Claude would not reliably know, with only minor trimmable padding — the role persona line ('You are an expert ASO keyword researcher...') and the 'Why it matters' table column explain things Claude can infer. Not 5 due to those small instances of over-explanation; not 3 because there are no padded concept explanations. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, actionable instruction-only guidance: an exact opportunity formula, quantified keyword buckets (3-5 primary, 5-10 secondary, 10-20 long-tail), and a fill-in output template with explicit char limits. Not 5 because how to actually obtain volume/difficulty data and competitor rankings is left unspecified; not 3 because the guidance is specific and templated rather than pseudocode-level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced four-phase process (Seed Expansion → Evaluation → Opportunity Scoring → Grouping) preceded by an explicit initial assessment with defaults. Not 5 because validation checkpoints are only implicit (e.g., no step verifying the 30/100-char limits before delivering the strategy); not 3 because the sequence is explicit and well-defined, and this is non-destructive research so no hard cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized, self-contained body with clean section headers and only one-level references (the app-marketing-context.md check and the related-skills list); no bundle files exist. Not 5 because at ~135 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception and the body is monolithic rather than splitting any detail into references; not 3 because structure and navigation are good with nothing buried. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |