Content
71%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-structured instructional skill body with an excellent progressive-disclosure design and concrete, framework-aware appraisal guidance (RoB 2, ROBINS-I versions, QUADAS-3). Its weakness is verbosity: the General Approach and Remember sections restate generic critical-thinking attitudes at length.
Suggestions
Trim the 'Remember' section to the high-value 'Always distinguish between' list and drop the motivational bullets ('Balance between skepticism and openness to evidence', 'Goals of critical thinking') that restate generic attitudes.
Compress the 'General Approach' subsection (Be Constructive / Be Specific / Be Proportionate / Apply Consistent Standards / Consider Context) to a few non-obvious rules or fold it into the critique-structure section.
Add one brief worked appraisal example (a short paragraph applying the six-step workflow to a sample claim) so the workflow is fully concrete without loading the references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The bulk is domain-specific procedural guidance, but roughly 80 of 224 lines pad with generic critical-thinking attitudes Claude already knows ('Balance between skepticism and openness to evidence', 'Don't apply stricter standards to findings you dislike', 'Recognize that all research has limitations'). More than minor over-explanation, so short of 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: a six-step appraisal workflow with per-step deliverables ('Record population, intervention/exposure, comparator, outcome...'), concrete RoB 2 guidance ('identify the specific result: outcome, time point, intervention comparison... record signalling answers'), a structured critique format, and a copy-pasteable figure command. Not 5 because no worked appraisal example is inline and some guidance stays at principle level ('Be Constructive'). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered six-step Appraisal Workflow is clearly sequenced with per-step checkpoints ('Keep missing reporting separate from evidence that a procedure was not performed', 'Record the exact tool version and the result being assessed'). Not 5 because there are no explicit validation/feedback loops, though the destructive/batch cap does not apply to this analysis skill. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview pointing to eight existing reference files, each well-signaled with a one-line description and a dedicated 'When to consult references' section; verified that references are one level deep (they point only to siblings such as review_sources.md). Split is appropriate and navigation is easy. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |