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 well-organized and concise with a clear two-phase sequence, but the CLI command guidance is incomplete and the workflow lacks explicit validation/error-handling checkpoints.
Suggestions
Show a complete, copy-paste-ready `muapi image generate` invocation including how the prompt and aspect_ratio arguments are passed, so actionability reaches 3.
Add an explicit validation step after image generation (e.g., confirm the output file exists / poll status) before composing the caption, to add a workflow checkpoint.
Remove the bolded restatement of the description under the title to tighten conciseness further.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it does not explain basic concepts — and each section (Inputs, two phases, Notes) earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor despite a minor redundant bolded description line. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | `muapi image generate` with model=nano-banana-2 and aspect_ratio is concrete, but the full call syntax (how the prompt argument is passed, output handling) is not shown, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than copy-paste-ready level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Phase A then Phase B is a clear sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery steps (e.g., handling a failed image generation), matching 'steps listed but validation gaps' rather than the checkpointed level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the skill is self-contained with well-organized sections (Inputs, Steps, Notes, Trigger Keywords), which the rubric's simple-skills note allows to score 3 without external references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |