Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A comprehensive, well-structured grant-writing skill with concrete agency guidance, real templates, and a clear phased workflow, but it is verbose and keeps too much detail inline rather than pushing it to the existing reference files.
Suggestions
Trim generic writing advice ('Writing Principles', 'Common Mistakes to Avoid') that Claude already knows, or move it to a reference file, to improve conciseness.
Move the per-agency 'Review Criteria' and 'Common Proposal Types' detail into the corresponding reference files, keeping SKILL.md a lean overview that points to them.
Reduce the Overview section's restatement of what grant writing is; lead directly with agency-specific triggers and structure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~900-line body contains genuine agency-specific detail but is padded with generic writing advice ('Use active voice', 'Choose strong verbs') and an overview restating what grant writing is; mostly efficient but could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | As an instruction skill it gives concrete, actionable structure — named forms (CM03), page limits, Specific Aims structure, budget categories — plus real templates, satisfying the instruction-skill actionability bar. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Workflow for Grant Development' section sequences five phases with activities, outputs, and timeframes, and includes an internal-review/mock-review feedback phase; grant writing is not a destructive operation so no validation cap applies. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are well-signaled and one-level-deep (all referenced files exist), but the body is a long monolithic overview with substantial inline detail (review criteria, common mistakes, writing principles, proposal types) that overlaps the reference files and could be split out. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |