Content
75%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.
A well-structured, actionable research workflow with explicit budgets, tool calls, and completion criteria. It earns 4s across the board: tight and concrete but with minor editorial padding, implicit checkpoints, and no external reference files to exercise progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Tighten editorial asides like "every extra call is latency the user watches" into directive constraints to lift conciseness toward 5.
Make the Step 7 completion check an explicit enforced gate (e.g., a checklist Claude must satisfy before moving to outline grounding) to strengthen workflow_clarity.
Consider splitting the ledger format and conflict-resolution rules into a short reference file so SKILL.md stays a lean overview, improving progressive_disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and purposeful — names tools and budgets without explaining what they are — with a few editorial asides ("every extra call is latency the user watches") that could be trimmed, short of a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Instruction-only but concrete: specific tool calls (list_materials, fetch_url, generate_scene.materialFacts) and hard budgets ("at most 8 web_search calls", "at most 6 URLs") give executable guidance with minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear nine-step sequence with an explicit completion checkpoint in Step 7 and conflict-handling in Step 6; non-destructive so the destructive-cap does not apply, but a couple of checkpoints are implicit rather than enforced. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into labeled sections (Structure, Steps 1–9, Scene naming, Hard rules) with no nested or buried references; no bundle files exist, and the inline content is appropriately kept in one coherent process file, though a few sub-sections could be split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |