Content
78%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, lean, and largely executable overview with a clear probe→validate workflow, undermined by a bundle defect: the routing table's four sub-guide markdown files are missing, which breaks progressive disclosure and weakens the detailed-action and feedback-loop paths.
Suggestions
Add the four referenced sub-guide files (extract.md, transform.md, compose.md, interactive.md) to the bundle so the routing table's links resolve — currently every non-OCR task path dead-ends.
Since the sub-guides are absent, surface at least the key validation feedback loop inline (e.g., run sanity_check.py / check exit code 3, fix, re-run) so the validate→fix→retry cycle doesn't depend on missing files.
Either inline a minimal worked example for each routing row (one concrete command beyond survey.py) or confirm the .md files ship with the skill, so actionability does not hinge on references that may not be present.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and high-signal with no basic-concept padding — it never explains what a PDF is or how libraries work — and every section (routing table, install, triage, library matrix, gotchas) earns its tokens, matching the lean 5 anchor; the licensing rationale is tied to a real embedding constraint rather than filler. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Inline guidance is copy-paste ready ("python3 -m pip install ...", "scripts/survey.py path/to/file.pdf --pretty", "qpdf --password=… --decrypt") and the triage flow is fully executable, but four of five routing-table rows send the user to sub-guide files (extract.md, transform.md, compose.md, interactive.md) that are absent from the bundle, leaving the detailed execution path a dead end — a gap just below the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced flow is stated ("probe → plan → extract or compose → validate") with validation named as the final step and validation exit codes documented ("3 validation failure"), but the validate→fix→retry feedback loops are deferred to the missing sub-guides, so it sits at the 4 anchor rather than 5; the validation cap at 3 does not apply because validation is explicitly present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview-plus-routing-table design is well-signaled and one level deep (a 5-level design), but scored against the actual bundle the four referenced sub-guide markdown files do not exist — only scripts/ is present — so the promised detail layer is unrealized and disclosure is only partially delivered, fitting the 3 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |