Content
56%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, clearly sequenced decision-support workflow with strong guardrails and validation hooks. Its main weaknesses are inline catalog detail that belongs in reference files, guidance that stays at the directive level without examples, and some redundant framing across sections.
Suggestions
Move the decision-lens catalog (Current scale through Coverage) into a one-level-deep reference file (e.g. references/lenses.md) and keep a two-line pointer plus the most-used lenses in SKILL.md.
Add one short worked example of turning a question into a framed analysis (e.g. "should we prioritize mobile users?" -> data questions, comparison, denominator) to make the directive guidance concrete.
Tighten sections 1, 3, and 5 by stating the decision-first requirement once and removing repeated framing sentences like "Do not let unclear scope turn into broad exploratory work by default".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is disciplined and directive but includes framing Claude largely already knows ("Give the audience enough trustworthy evidence, interpretation, and uncertainty framing...", "Do not let unclear scope turn into broad exploratory work by default") and restates the decision-first point across sections 1, 3, and 5. Mostly efficient, but several sections could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Directives like "State plainly: the question and decision the analysis should inform" and "Define a framework... the specific data questions that would support or change the recommendation" are directionally concrete, and the lens catalog gives usable definitions. However, there are no worked examples, output templates, or sample question formulations, leaving the guidance at the directive level rather than fully executable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with explicit checkpoints and stop conditions ("If a required source is unavailable, stop that path", "Validate before concluding", "reconcile them or explain why they differ"). Not a 5 because validation is delegated to other skills ($validate-data) rather than embedded as concrete checkpoints describing what failure looks like and how to recover. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single body file is well sectioned, but no bundle files exist, and ~40 lines of inline catalog material (the decision-lens list from "Current scale" through "Coverage", plus the context bullets in section 2) is detail that would fit better in a one-level-deep reference file. Structure is present, but the split is not taken advantage of. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |