Content
93%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 crisp, well-structured instruction-only skill: lean, concrete, and easy to follow, with a clear output contract and boundary guidance. The only weakness is workflow_clarity, where an explicit validation/checkpoint step would push it to a 5.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the workflow (e.g. a step that confirms every suspected problem is backed by cited image evidence before composing the report).
Consider a short pre-report self-check (each finding has both an imagePath/view citation and a clear P0/P1 label) to close the validation gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (evidence-class distinction, workflow, P0/P1 definitions, output format) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable instruction-only guidance with concrete tool parameters ('pass them as focus', 'isolate with context: "ghost"', 'hide the enclosing part', 'cite the exact imagePath and view') and a precise output contract; absence of code is appropriate for this audit process. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 8-step sequence with conditional refinement ('decide where closer evidence is needed', 'zoom only if the first focused view is still too wide') and explicit terminal states, but it lacks an explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint, leaving minor validation gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well under 50 lines with no need for external references; the body is cleanly organized into an intro, a Workflow section, a no-findings terminal state, and a boundary note, which is sufficient structure for a skill this size. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |