Content
65%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 a data-rich, highly actionable reference with specific benchmarks, formulas, and templates that Claude could not reliably produce from memory. Its weaknesses are structural: a truncated two-step workflow, no progressive disclosure into bundle files for a skill this size, and padding from a duplicated intro, a promotional footer, and time-sensitive benchmark data.
Suggestions
Complete the 'Media Plan Development Process' beyond Step 2: add explicit steps for computing projections from the benchmark tables, assembling the output using the template, and validating the result (e.g., budget allocations sum to 100%, projected CPA cross-checked against benchmark ranges).
Move the CPM/CPC/CPA benchmark tables, seasonal adjustments, and the media plan output template into references/ files (e.g., references/benchmarks.md, references/template.md), keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.
Remove the promotional 'About this skill' footer and the duplicated opening paragraph, and reframe the '2026 Industry Benchmarks' heading so staleness is detectable (e.g., placing dated figures in a clearly marked reference file with a stated as-of date).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly dense, genuinely useful reference data (benchmark tables, allocation percentages), but the opening paragraph duplicates the frontmatter description, the closing "About this skill" section is ~10 lines of promotional links with UTM tags, and "2026 Industry Benchmarks" is time-sensitive data not placed in a deprecated/old-patterns section. This fits anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than 4, where over-explanation would be only minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout: an input-gathering template, exact budget percentages by objective and business type, a worked reach formula ("Reach = ($10,000 × 1,000) / $8.00 / 3 = 416,667"), a full output template, and a worked $25K/month B2B SaaS example. Per the rubric's scoring notes, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when guidance is this actionable, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The "Media Plan Development Process" lists Step 1 (gather inputs) and Step 2 (select channel mix) but then stops — subsequent sections (budget allocation, projections, reach, funnel mapping, output template) are reference material with no sequenced steps for assembling or sanity-checking the final plan (e.g., verifying allocations sum to 100%). Phase success metrics ("CPA < 2x target") act as implicit checkpoints only, fitting anchor 3 ('steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit') rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with clear headers, but it is a ~350-line monolith with zero bundle files: ~150+ lines of benchmark tables, seasonal adjustments, and the output template that clearly belong in references/ files are fully inlined. This matches anchor 3 ('content that should be separate is inline') rather than 2, since the in-file structure itself is good, not minimal. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |