Content
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
Well-structured with strong file navigation, clear workflow sequencing, and explicit validation checks, but it carries notable token weight explaining academic-writing fundamentals Claude already knows and lacks any worked before/after example to make the polishing rules fully concrete.
Suggestions
Trim standard academic-writing exposition Claude already knows (what each section does, what a strong title is, what needs citation, basic proofreading) and keep only the skill-specific strategy, rules, and AI boundaries to improve conciseness.
Add a concrete before/after worked example showing the polishing rules applied to a real paragraph, so the guidance demonstrates the transformation rather than only stating rules.
Move the per-section responsibility details (Introduction/Results/Discussion/Methods) into a reference file and keep the body as a concise overview, reducing inline concept explanation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is long and explains standard academic-writing concepts Claude already knows (e.g. 'Results are a summary of the data collected', what a good title should do, what needs citation, basic proofreading), so it is mostly efficient but could be tightened. Not a 1 because genuine skill-specific material (strategy, AI traffic-light boundaries, Chinese mode, output format) earns its place; not a 3 because much of the per-section exposition restates known conventions. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete rules are present (sentence word range '10-30', banned Methods phrases, Results vs Discussion verb lists, abstract formula, explicit output format, file-routing table), but the body includes no worked before/after polishing example showing the rules applied. The guidance is strong yet incomplete relative to a fully demonstrated, copy-paste-ready standard. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequencing via the diagnosis priority order ('paper type -> section job -> paragraph logic -> claim/evidence/boundary -> sentence polish') and numbered writing orders, plus explicit validation steps ('Always run an overclaim check here') and a proofreading checklist. Not capped at 2 because prose polishing is not a destructive/batch operation and the checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-signaled 'When to open extra files' table routes each task to one of five reference files, all of which exist and are only one level deep with no nested chaining; overview content stays inline while detail is split out. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |