Content
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A clearly structured instructional skill with a useful output template and worked example, but it is held back by a verbose inline example, somewhat abstract process steps, and a monolithic layout with no progressive disclosure. Tightening the example and concretizing the process steps would raise the score.
Suggestions
Trim the intermittent-fasting example to a skeletal demonstration of the output format rather than a full ~80-line essay, freeing token budget.
Make the Research Process steps more concrete and actionable (e.g., specify how to record citations, how to weight source credibility, when to stop gathering) instead of abstract directives.
Move the worked example and/or source-evaluation criteria into a referenced bundle file (e.g., EXAMPLES.md) so the SKILL.md body stays a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The process and criteria sections are reasonably lean, but the full intermittent-fasting worked example (~80 lines) is verbose padding that could be shortened without losing the format demonstration. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The output-format markdown template and worked example are concrete, but the Research Process steps are abstract directives ("Consider multiple perspectives", "Look for primary and secondary sources") rather than executable instructions. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step numbered sequence (Clarify → Identify → Gather → Synthesize → Document) is presented; no validation checkpoints are needed because this is non-destructive research synthesis rather than a batch or destructive operation. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized, but the skill is a single ~180-line monolithic file with a large inline example and no external references that could offload detail to bundle files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |