Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-structured, providing sensible research guidance without padding. Its main weakness is actionability and workflow clarity: tactics are described at a high level with no executable examples and no explicit sequenced workflow with verification steps.
Suggestions
Add a concrete, sequenced research workflow (e.g., 1. Formulate query → 2. Run search → 3. Evaluate sources → 4. Synthesize with citations) with an explicit verification/check step for source corroboration.
Include at least one executable example, such as a sample query string demonstrating quoted phrases plus a site: operator for a real scenario.
Tighten the Pitfalls section into the workflow as validation checkpoints rather than a separate advisory list.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean set of bulleted principles and tactics with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It offers concrete tactics (quoted exact phrases, 'site:docs.python.org', including the current year, version numbers) but no executable code or copy-paste-ready commands, leaving guidance at the tactic level rather than fully actionable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Content is organized into topical sections (Search Techniques, Synthesizing Results) that imply a rough flow, but there is no explicit step sequence or validation checkpoints for the multi-step research process. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and has no external references; the body is well-organized into clearly headed sections, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |