Content
78%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 a well-structured overview with a clear multi-step workflow, concrete output paths, and excellent progressive disclosure via a reference-file table. Its main weakness is mild verbosity in the Step 3b rationale and reliance on pointer-based rather than inline actionability, with no explicit validation feedback loop.
Suggestions
Trim the meta-justification in Step 3b (the 'This step exists here because...' sentences) to a single clause, keeping only the operational rule.
Add an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint for document generation (e.g., re-check that both files exist and the archive row was written before declaring the application recorded).
Inline one or two concrete decision rules currently deferred to reference files (e.g., the subfolder naming rule) so the core workflow is actionable without opening another file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and pointer-driven with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the Step 3b block carries meta-rationale ('This step exists here because /scrape Step 5 routes straight into this skill. Without it, that path writes two documents and records nothing.') and a long first bullet that could be trimmed, fitting anchor-4 'minor instances of over-explanation'. Not 5 because of the justifying prose in Step 3b; not 3 because the rest is efficient and assumes Claude's competence. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete output file paths ('cv/main_<company>_<role>.tex', 'cover_letters/cover_<company>_<role>.tex'), a named subfolder rule, and per-step governing reference docs; as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized, but guidance is delivered largely via pointers rather than inline specifics, leaving minor gaps (anchor-4). Not 5 because there is no copy-paste-ready content and many decisions are deferred to referenced files; not 3 because the file targets and routing are specific and executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence (Steps 1, 2, 3, 3b, 4) with real checkpoints — a user go/no-go gate at the end of Step 1, a stop-condition in Step 2, and a 'run once both documents exist' gate in Step 3b — but no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop, so anchor-4 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' applies. Not 5 because no error-recovery feedback loop or checklist exists; not 3 because multiple genuine checkpoints are present and the seen_jobs.json prohibition avoids the destructive/batch cap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that delegates detail to nine numbered reference files surfaced through a dedicated 'Reference Files' table with purposes, keeping references one level deep and easy to navigate, matching the anchor-5 example; no bundle files are present on disk so scoring is against the references as written. Not 4 because the central table plus in-step citations provide well-signaled, one-level-deep navigation throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |