Content
61%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.
The body is well-structured and actionable with concrete prompts and commands, but it is a batch image-generation skill that lacks explicit validation/checkpoint steps, capping workflow clarity at 3. Conciseness is decent though the prompt-heavy format adds some padding.
Suggestions
Add validation checkpoints between the parallel generation steps — e.g. verify each panel image was produced and poll request status before presenting results, with a retry path on failure.
Trim redundancy in the 'Notes for the Executing Agent' section and condense the repeated prompt boilerplate (shared style/color/format phrases could be factored once).
Flesh out the curl fallback example with a concrete request body so it is executable rather than a skeletal '{...}' template.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete prompts and a tight input table, but the long repeated prompt strings and the 'Notes for the Executing Agent' section include some padding that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, near-copy-paste-ready muapi commands with model IDs, aspect ratios, and full prompt templates, with only minor gaps like the curl fallback being left as a skeletal template. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-step parallel generation sequence is clear, but this is a batch image-generation workflow with no explicit validation/checkpoint steps to confirm each panel succeeded or to retry on failure, which the rubric caps at 3 for batch operations. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well organized into Inputs, Steps, Notes, and Trigger Keywords sections with no deep reference nesting, though the executing-agent notes are inlined where a separate reference could carry them; structure is good overall. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |