Content
72%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 content is actionable and well-structured for a simple image-generation recipe, with concrete commands and prompt templates. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the generation flow lacks validation checkpoints and the post-generation steps are loosely defined.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step after generation (e.g., verify the image returned successfully and retry on failure) to introduce a feedback loop and lift workflow clarity above 3.
Tighten the "After generation" section into a concrete sequenced checklist rather than open-ended "offer to…" suggestions.
Provide a complete curl example body instead of a `{...}` placeholder so the fallback path is fully copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept over-explanation, though the bolded restatement of the description and the duplicated Trigger Keywords list are minor padding that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete `muapi image edit`/`generate` commands with specific model IDs and full prompt templates plus a curl fallback; minor gaps remain since the curl body uses a `{...}` placeholder and `{{input}}` tokens must be substituted. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phase A has a clear sequence with an explicit photo/no-photo branch, but there are no validation or verification checkpoints and the "After generation" follow-ups are loose offers rather than a defined sequence with feedback loops. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the single-file body is under ~50 lines with well-organized sections (Inputs, Steps, Notes, Trigger Keywords, Agent notes), satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |