Content
72%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 lean, well-structured instruction skill with concrete numeric guidance and textbook progressive disclosure — the long experiment list is properly externalized to a real reference file. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: sections are organized topically rather than as an explicit procedure, and no validation checkpoints (e.g., verify baseline metrics exist before setting activation targets) are specified.
Suggestions
Add an explicit ordered workflow near the top (e.g., 1. Read product-marketing context if present → 2. Ask the five assessment questions → 3. Define the activation event → 4. Audit funnel drop-off → 5. Produce the output-format deliverables) so the topical sections hang off a clear procedure.
Insert validation checkpoints, such as 'confirm instrumented funnel data exists before recommending a target activation rate; if not, include a measurement-setup step first' and 're-check each recommendation against the funnel data before finalizing the audit.'
Merge or differentiate the duplicated question sets ("Initial Assessment" bullets and "Task-Specific Questions") and add one small worked example — a single audit finding in the Finding → Impact → Recommendation → Priority format — to make the output format concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and lean — tables, terse principles ("Do, Don't Show: Interactive > Tutorial"), and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It falls at anchor 4 rather than 5 because of minor tighten-able redundancy: "Task-Specific Questions" repeats the Initial Assessment questions nearly verbatim, and the "Activation Metrics" list partially duplicates the "Key Metrics" table. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, instruction-only guidance with specific numbers and timings ("3-7 items," "Max 3-5 steps per tour," email triggers at "24h, 72h" and "days 3, 7, 14") and defined output formats. It misses anchor 5 because there is no worked example — e.g., a sample audit finding or a filled-out checklist — showing what a deliverable looks like. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is implied by section order (assess context → define activation → design flow → coordinate channels → measure) and the Initial Assessment gives an explicit first step, but the body never sequences these into an explicit procedure and lacks validation checkpoints (e.g., confirming baseline funnel data before recommending targets). This matches 'steps present but checkpoints missing or implicit' rather than anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present.' | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md serves as a well-sectioned overview, and the exhaustive experiment catalog is correctly split out: an inline category summary points to the real, one-level-deep [references/experiments.md](references/experiments.md), which exists in the bundle and covers the summarized categories. Navigation is easy and nothing that belongs in a reference is inlined. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |