Content
61%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 is well-structured, actionable instructional guidance for conducting and writing up research, with strong source-tracing specificity. It is held back by philosophical padding and an implicit rather than explicit workflow with validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Trim philosophical filler ('nothing exists in a vacuum', the 'vast amounts of knowledge' preamble) to tighten token efficiency.
Make the workflow sequence explicit with numbered phases and concrete checkpoints (e.g., 'after each source, record confidence + citation before moving on').
Consider moving the reference-formatting examples and stable-reference guidance into a short companion reference file to keep the overview lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient actionable guidance, but padded with philosophical asides Claude doesn't need ('nothing exists in a vacuum', 'You have been trained with vast amounts of knowledge, that's good, you should exploit that'). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance appropriate to an instruction-only skill: an explicit 'Always Include' list (confidence levels, source types) and concrete reference-format examples, with only minor abstract phrasing. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections form a loose thematic sequence (assumptions -> search -> write-as-you-go -> cite -> note unreachable) but checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit; no destructive/batch cap applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no external references needed for a cohesive methodology skill; slightly over the 50-line simple-skill threshold and a few inline examples could be split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |