Content
70%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.
The body is exceptionally concise and well-structured for a simple skill, but its actionability and workflow clarity are held back by a lack of executable specifics and validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add one concrete citation-format example (e.g., '[Title](url) — accessed YYYY-MM-DD, version vX.Y') so the 'links/citations' and 'version pins' steps are executable.
Insert an explicit verification step in the workflow, such as confirming each cited link resolves and that a source is primary before relying on it.
Show a minimal synthesis format or template (fact vs. inference separation) to make the 'Synthesize' step copy-paste actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — short imperative steps ('Prefer primary sources', 'Note dates and version pins', 'Synthesize; separate fact from inference') with no padding and every token earning its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance is concrete in direction but lacks executable specifics — there is no example of how to capture a citation, what a 'version pin' looks like, or how to format the synthesis, leaving key details for execution. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence is present, but it has no validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying a source is primary, confirming a citation resolves) and no feedback loop, which the rubric treats as gaps for sequence-without-checkpoints. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the body is well-organized into clear sections (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow), which the rubric's simple-skill exception lets score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |