Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a strong, action-oriented compilation workflow with executable commands, clear validation checkpoints, and a real error-recovery loop. Its main weaknesses are redundant restatements of the page-count rules and a monolithic structure with no external reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the ML-vs-IEEE page-count rules into one place (e.g., the Constants block or the venue table) and reference it from Step 6 and Key Rules instead of restating it three times to improve conciseness.
Move the venue-requirements table and the Step 3 error catalog into separate reference files (e.g., references/venues.md and references/errors.md) linked from the main body to improve progressive disclosure.
Replace the pseudocode loop in Step 4 with a concrete bash loop (e.g., 'for attempt in $(seq 1 $MAX_COMPILE_ATTEMPTS); do ...; done') so the entire workflow is copy-paste executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient executable commands and tight tables without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the page-count rules (ML vs IEEE, refs-in-limit) are restated three times — in Constants, Step 6, and Key Rules — and the venue table repeats the IEEE guidance. This matches the score-2 anchor 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not level 3 because of the redundancy, and not level 1 because it is far from padded verbosity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands (latexmk, pdfinfo, pdftotext, pdffonts), a concrete inline python3 script, and specific error-message-to-fix mappings. This matches the score-3 anchor 'Fully executable code/commands; specific examples; copy-paste ready'; the single pseudocode loop in Step 4 is minor and surrounded by concrete steps, so it does not drop to level 2. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | An eight-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (Step 5 automated checks, Step 6 page-count verification, Step 7 submission checklist) and a feedback loop in Step 4 (compile → parse errors → auto-fix → recompile, with a 'Stuck after 2 attempts' escalation). This matches the score-3 anchor 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery' and is not level 2 because checkpoints are explicit, not implicit. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files exist, so the skill is a single monolithic SKILL.md with well-organized sections but everything inline — the venue-requirements table and the error catalog are content that could live in separate reference files. Matches the score-2 anchor 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'; it is not level 3 because there are no one-level-deep external references, and not level 1 because sections are clearly organized rather than a wall of text. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |