Content
85%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 well-engineered skill body: fully executable, verified code examples; a clear sequenced workflow with named validation checkpoints; and excellent progressive disclosure with real one-level-deep reference files. Its one weakness is token efficiency — the Overview and mistakes sections re-explain statistics fundamentals Claude already knows, and the version/citation sections carry dated detail that could be trimmed or relocated.
Suggestions
Trim the Overview's exposition of Fisher's principles to a three-item checklist of what to apply (randomize / replicate at the right level / block known nuisance), moving the conceptual why into references/randomization_and_blocking.md where it already elaborates.
Compress the 'mistakes that ruin studies' items to one-line patterns to avoid (e.g., 'Pseudoreplication: 100 cells per mouse is n=3, not n=300 — replicate at the level treatment is randomized'), keeping the detail in the already-existing reference files.
Move the version/date bookkeeping (pyDOE3 archive history, tested-version lists, Windows interpreter path, archive-environment advice) into a short 'Environment notes' or the Installation reference so the main body stays stable and lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and decision-oriented, but re-explains concepts a competent model already knows: the Overview walks through Fisher's principles ("assign treatments at random so that confounders... are balanced in expectation"), the mistakes section explains basics like "Evaporation and thermal gradients make plate edges differ", and the Installation/Resources sections carry version and date detail (pyDOE3 archived May 2026, tested-version lists, Windows interpreter paths). This is anchor 3's 'includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances', since the conceptual re-explanations span several sections. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Both script sections give copy-paste-ready code with real arguments (e.g., `block_randomization(n=60, arms=["treatment", "control"], seed=42)`, `central_composite({"temp_C": (20, 60), "conc_mM": (1, 10)}, center=(2, 2), face="inscribed", seed=42)`) whose imports, function names, and keyword arguments all match the bundled scripts, plus install commands and CSV export. Specific examples cover the common randomization and DOE cases; this matches anchor 5, exceeding anchor 4 because the examples are verified-executable and comprehensive. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step Workflow is clearly sequenced (state question/unit → list nuisance factors → pick design → decide replication → generate layout → randomize and verify → document → match analysis) with explicit validation checkpoints: step 6's "verify roster IDs, completed-block balance, range limits, and rank", the `arm_balance(sched)` sanity check, and "verify every ID exactly once". This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps' rather than anchor 4, since checkpoints are named rather than implied; the destructive/batch cap does not apply as verification steps are present and the skill generates rather than destroys. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md is a genuine overview: a decision tree for choosing a design, working examples for the two scripts, a mistakes checklist, and clearly signaled one-level-deep pointers ("→ references/randomization_and_blocking.md", etc.) with a Resources section repeating them. All four referenced files and both scripts exist on disk and the reference files contain no nested references. Content is appropriately split with easy navigation — the anchor 5 pattern, not anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |