Content
67%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 well-structured and actionable with clear workflow steps, validation checkpoints, and properly signaled one-level-deep references. Its main weakness is conciseness: the same guardrails and output contract are restated across multiple sections, inflating token cost without adding new guidance.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated evidence-guardrail guidance (separate facts from field signal, do not overclaim) so it lives once in Rules rather than being restated across Workflow Guidance, Modes, Output Format, and the Automation Offer Guard.
Move the full Markdown output contract and the automation prompt block into a reference file (e.g. output-contract.md) and keep SKILL.md to a concise section list plus a pointer, reducing inline token cost.
Tighten the automation-offer section: the local-automation inspection steps and the offer/no-offer branches can be shortened to a checklist since the rationale is already covered in Next Step Options.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is comprehensive but long and somewhat repetitive across Workflow Guidance, Modes, Output Format, Rules, and the Automation Offer Guard, with overlapping guidance restated in multiple places that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, actionable guidance: explicit matrix row formats (Area | Seller | Competitor | Readout), named statuses (Lead, Pressure from, Mixed), a full output contract with section headers, and a copy-ready automation prompt block; minor gaps such as filename sanitization details are underspecified. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (read the generated HTML back and verify sections, render once and fix blank pages/broken layout, ask before overwriting), though the validation feedback loop is described more softly than a strict validate-fix-retry gate. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with a Reference Loading section pointing to three real one-level-deep bundle files (request-schema.yaml, source-priority.md, output-contract.md), each with a clear use-case signal; the body still inlines substantial detail (full output contract, automation prompt) that could live in references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |