Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, highly actionable literature-review skill with clear sequencing, but it pays a conciseness cost from repeated restatement of the source-priority logic, lacks explicit validation checkpoints in its workflow, and keeps lengthy venue-tier material inline with no progressive-disclosure references.
Suggestions
Consolidate the source-ordering policy into one authoritative section and have 'External Search Policy', 'Venue Priority' usage rules, and 'Key Rules' reference it instead of restating the ladder each time.
Add an explicit validation/dedup checkpoint between Step 1 (external search) and Step 2 (fact extraction) — e.g., verify each candidate is reachable and de-duplicate against already-captured sources before extracting facts.
Move the Tier A/B/C venue lists and the output-table column spec into a bundled reference file (e.g., references/venues.md) and link to it one level deep, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and directive (no explaining of basic concepts), but the source-ordering logic is restated across 'Retrieval Order', 'External Search Policy', 'Venue Priority' usage rules, and 'Key Rules' — redundancy that could be tightened, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than the lean level-3 example. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable instruction-only guidance: a concrete database ladder with URLs (ieeexplore.ieee.org, sciencedirect.com, dl.acm.org), tiered venue lists, a fixed output-table column set, a Source-origin enum, and explicit synthesis groupings — copy-paste ready despite the absence of code, which is appropriate for a lit-review skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (0a/0b/0c/1/2 → Synthesis → Output) with explicit skip conditions, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., a dedup/verify-availability gate between steps), matching the 'steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor rather than the level-3 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized with clear headers, but the ~290-line body is monolithic: the full Tier A/B/C venue lists and the output-table spec are inline, and there are no bundle files or one-level-deep references to move that detail into (references/scripts/assets are empty), matching the 'content that should be separate is inline' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |