Content
70%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is well-structured with a clear six-phase workflow, explicit validation gates, and clean progressive disclosure to verified reference files. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity and some abstract routing guidance that could be more concrete.
Suggestions
Consolidate the overlapping 'Hard rules' (Overview) and 'Hard writing rules' (Phase 4) into a single authoritative list to remove restatement.
Tighten the red-flag table by cross-referencing the five-family ban list rather than re-explaining each family inline.
Make routing guidance more actionable — e.g., specify what the 'hand off to intro-drafter' and 'CER skeleton' steps concretely produce rather than naming them abstractly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely disciplined procedural guidance with no basic-concept padding, but it runs long with restated material — the 'Hard rules' and 'Hard writing rules' overlap, and the red-flag table reiterates the five-family ban list — so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete phrasings ('we observe' vs 'the authors report') and a stop/move red-flag table give specific instruction, but several routes remain abstract ('hand off to intro-drafter', 'plan each paragraph on a CER skeleton') without copy-paste-ready detail. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Six sequenced phases (Scope through Deliver) carry explicit checkpoints — the L0–L3 evidence Gate, a writing-time red-flag stop table, and a mandatory independent citation-verification pass — forming clear feedback loops. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to references/*.md, all of which exist, and detail is appropriately split across nine reference files with no nested indirection. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |