Content
88%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 tightly engineered process skill: executable numbered instructions, explicit pass/fail/needs-input validation rules, and a proper two-file reference split. The two structural costs are repeated boundary/handoff restatements across sections and a bundle whose external cross-skill links are unresolvable as shipped.
Suggestions
State the R1/R2 and attribution-reconciler boundaries once in the intro scope line and once in the handoff step, then remove the duplicates — the 'Next Best Skill' section nearly verbatim repeats the Skill Contract's 'Primary next skill' bullet and instruction 8.
Make out-of-bundle references resolvable or trim them: 7 of the 9 links (skill-contract.md, measurement-control.md, roas-benchmark.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md, ad-account-auditor, attribution-reconciler) escape the skill directory and don't exist in the bundle; inline the one-line essentials (e.g., the handoff summary shape) or copy the needed content into references/.
Collapse the intro paragraph's three restatements of the attribution-reconciler boundary into a single sentence — the scope line already establishes build-vs-score and gate-vs-reconcile.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Per-sentence the body is lean — no explaining of concepts Claude already knows, terse tables of decision rules — but the same boundary is restated repeatedly: the intro paragraph states the attribution-reconciler handoff three ways, instruction 5 repeats it, and the "Next Best Skill" section near-duplicates the Skill Contract's "Primary next skill" bullet and instruction 8. More than minor trim potential, but well above anchor 3's "some unnecessary explanation" since ~90% of tokens earn their place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: 8 numbered steps each with a concrete operation ("compare landing-page UTMs against the Traffic-acquisition source/medium rows; flag missing, inconsistent-case, or auto-tagging-vs-manual collisions"), explicit decision rules ("If no test conversion was run, that item is needs-input, not pass"), defined deliverable formats, and copy-paste-ready Quick Start invocations. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 8-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: "Mark each pass/fail/needs-input… never pass-by-default", test-conversion verification with fail/needs-input distinctions, the modeled-gap flag-not-fail rule ("only no verifiable data at all is a fail"), a routing rule for reconciliation failures, a "Done when" contract, and a final go/no-go launch-readiness statement. This is a checklist-driven process with error-recovery routing, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The two in-bundle references (references/preflight-checklist.md, references/utm-event-spec.md) are real, one level deep, well-signaled inline at point of use and again in Reference Materials — the core split is exemplary. However, most other referenced paths (../../../references/skill-contract.md, ../../orchestrate/ad-test-designer/references/measurement-control.md, ../../../references/roas-benchmark.md, ../../../CONNECTORS.md, ../../../SECURITY.md, ../ad-account-auditor/SKILL.md, ../../scale/attribution-reconciler/SKILL.md) point outside the skill folder and do not exist in the bundle, leaving 7 dangling links. Not 5 per the bundle-structure guideline; not 3 since the references that exist are clearly signaled and content that should be separate is separate. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |