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.
The body is well-structured, actionable, and self-contained for a single-purpose tool, with concrete CLI examples and documented errors. Its main weakness is redundancy: the same two inputs appear as a bullet list, a table, and a JSON schema.
Suggestions
Collapse the three input representations (## Inputs bullets, ## Input table, ### Input JSON Schema) into a single section to reduce redundancy.
Replace the 'string_value' placeholder in the example with a realistic module name such as 'CPU' to make the example fully concrete.
Add a brief one-line expected output / success check so the single action has an explicit verification step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with no over-explanation of known concepts, but the two input parameters are restated three times (## Inputs bullets, ## Input table, ### Input JSON Schema), which is noticeable redundancy that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete, copy-paste-ready CLI invocation plus input-file and stdin variants, but the example uses a placeholder ('string_value') instead of a realistic value like 'CPU', leaving a minor gap versus fully executable examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-action skill whose call is unambiguous and error returns are documented; it sits just below 5 because there is no explicit validate/verify checkpoint, though the bookkeeping toggle is not a destructive or batch operation that would trigger the cap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections with no nested external references, appropriate for a single self-contained tool doc; the triplicate input representation is a minor organization gap keeping it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |