Content
71%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 delivers highly actionable, concrete policy checklists with excellent violation→fix examples and a usable pre-launch template, and the review workflow is clearly sequenced. Its main weaknesses are redundancy and staleness-prone dated details inflating token cost, and the absence of any progressive disclosure — all five platform and six industry deep dives are inlined in one very long file instead of being split into reference files.
Suggestions
Split the per-platform sections (Google, Meta, LinkedIn, TikTok, Reddit) and per-industry sections (Finance, Healthcare, Alcohol, Political) into separate files under references/ (e.g., references/google-ads.md, references/industries.md), keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with well-signaled one-level-deep links.
De-duplicate overlapping coverage: political, alcohol, financial/crypto, and trademark rules each appear in 2–3 sections (e.g., Meta Special Ad Categories vs. the Political Advertising section, Google trademark policies vs. the trademark comparison table) — consolidate each topic into a single canonical location.
Move volatile, time-stamped details (the "20% text rule removed 2021" note, X/Twitter political-ad ban reversal dates, appeal response times and success-rate percentages) into a clearly labeled live-policy/deprecated section or replace them with a single "verify against live platform policy" instruction so they don't silently go stale.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The checklists are dense and information-rich rather than padded, but political, alcohol, financial, and trademark rules are each repeated across 2–3 sections, and volatile time-stamped details ("removed 2021", "banned since 2019, reversed 2023", appeal success-rate percentages) will go stale without being isolated in an old-patterns/deprecated section. Not a 2 since no basic concepts are over-explained, but clearly needs tightening. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete guidance: violation→fix tables with exact rewrite examples ("FAST SHIPPING on ALL ORDERS" → "Fast Shipping on All Orders"), specific safe-alternative phrasings, a rejection table mapping cause to fix per platform, appeal paths, and a copy-paste pre-launch checklist template — specific examples cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence exists (universal checks → platform-specific checks → industry-specific checks → APPROVED/BLOCKED result gate) with checklist checkpoints and a structured output template. Minor gaps: it never explicitly instructs how to combine the sections for a given engagement or how to proceed when platform and industry rules conflict, and the post-review feedback loop (what to do after a fix is applied) is only implicit. This is a review skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with clear headers, but it is a ~570-line monolithic document with no bundle files at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist). The per-platform deep dives (Google/Meta/LinkedIn/TikTok/Reddit sections) and per-industry rules clearly belong in separate one-level-deep reference files, matching the anchor "content that should be separate is inline"; it scores above 2 only because section structure and navigation within the file are good. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |