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.
The body is a tight, actionable instruction sheet: concrete commands for both backends, clear selection rules, and a precise artifact contract. Its only weaknesses are minor — slight command duplication between sections, undefined slug/timestamp conventions, and an implied rather than explicit execution order.
Suggestions
Consolidate the duplicated `omx ask claude/gemini` invocations from the Usage block into the "Local CLI commands" section to remove redundancy.
Define the `<slug>` and `<timestamp>` conventions for the artifact filename (e.g. date-based timestamp and a short kebab-case slug of the question) so the path template is fully deterministic.
Add one line on what to do when the CLI call fails or returns empty output before writing the artifact, to make the execution sequence explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every section is instruction. The one redundancy is that the Usage block and the "Local CLI commands" block both repeat `omx ask claude/gemini` invocations, which could be merged. This matches anchor 4 ("Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed") better than anchor 5, where nothing could be cut. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands are given for both backends (`omx ask claude "{{ARGUMENTS}}"`, `claude -p "{{ARGUMENTS}}"`, `gemini -p "{{ARGUMENTS}}"`) plus an exact artifact path template with five required sections. Minor gaps keep it below 5: no concrete example of a filled-in artifact filename, and `<slug>`/`<timestamp>` formats are left undefined. This fits anchor 4 ("Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps"). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-purpose skill where sections read in execution order — backend selection rules, then commands, then the artifact requirement with its section checklist — and the sequence is unambiguous. It falls just short of 5 because the workflow is implied by section order rather than stated, and there's no guidance on handling a failed/empty CLI response before writing the artifact. Matches anchor 4; no validation cap applies since operations are non-destructive. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed: the skill is a short, single-purpose instruction set with well-organized headers (Usage, Backend selection, Local CLI commands, Artifact requirement). Per the guideline that skills under 50 lines with no need for external references can score 5 with just well-organized sections, this matches anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |