Content
67%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-organized instruction skill with genuinely concrete rules, a clear diagnostic priority order, and properly bundled, clearly-signaled one-level references. Its main cost is length: duplicated rules and standard writing-strategy material inflate the body, and a worked before/after example plus an explicit validation loop would push actionability and workflow clarity to the top anchors.
Suggestions
Deduplicate repeated rules: state the em-dash policy and the Results-vs-Discussion distinction once each, and trim sections restating general writing knowledge (hourglass structure, citation ethics) to short pointers into writing-strategy.md.
Add a compact worked example (original paragraph -> polished paragraph -> why changed) so the sentence rules, banned-phrase list, and output format are demonstrated end-to-end.
Turn the diagnostic priority order into an explicit numbered workflow with a validation checkpoint (e.g., run the overclaim and proofreading checks before delivering the polished text) so the process has a verify-fix-retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with rules but not lean: the em-dash prohibition is stated twice ("Avoid em dashes in polished output by default" and "Do not use em dashes as prose punctuation"), the Results-vs-Discussion distinction is repeated across the Results, Discussion, and sentence-type sections, and parts of the writing-strategy material (hourglass structure, citation ethics) restate knowledge Claude already has. It is above anchor 2 because most sections do carry non-obvious, course-derived rules. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: the "10-30" word sentence range, a named banned-phrase list ("under standard conditions", "the method was validated"), the three-part conclusion close, the abstract formula, and an explicit output format with revision notes. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no worked before/after polishing example showing the rules applied. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The body sequences work explicitly ("paper type -> section job -> paragraph logic -> claim/evidence/boundary -> sentence polish"), specifies writing order per paper type, and defines a default output format. It misses anchor 5 because there is no validate-fix-retry checkpoint loop; checks like the overclaim check and proofreading list are mentioned but not wired into an explicit step sequence. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All five referenced files exist on disk, are exactly one level deep, and are surfaced through a well-signaled 'Open when' table. It does not reach anchor 5 because a substantial amount of strategy detail (section responsibilities, sentence/paragraph rules) is inlined that could live in writing-strategy.md or style-guardrails.md, and the body points to an external cross-skill file (skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/paper-miner-writing-memory.md) outside the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |