Content
67%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 delivers a disciplined, contract-driven workflow with concrete paths, ownership boundaries, and a self-check, and it appropriately avoids teaching Claude anything it already knows. Its main costs are repetition of the same routing guard across four sections and the absence of a worked example of the actual proof-module output.
Suggestions
State the '[needs source]' propose-to-registry-events.py routing guard once (e.g., in the Scope guard or Skill Contract Writes bullet) and reference it from the other sections instead of repeating it verbatim in step 5 and Save Results.
Add one worked example of each proof module form (a filled-in stat card and gap-list entry) so the expected output shape is unambiguous.
Turn the step-6 self-check into a validation loop: name the action to take for each failed check (e.g., a module missing a claim ID is pulled from the set and added to the gap list) rather than only listing confirmations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body never explains generic concepts and its rules are domain-specific, but the same guard — '[needs source]' via 'operation: propose' to registry-events.py, never writing narrative-registry canonical files — is restated nearly verbatim in the Scope guard, the Writes bullet, step 5, and Save Results, so it could be tightened considerably. It is not level 4 because the redundancy goes beyond minor trimming. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact memory paths, a Quick Start with copy-paste invocations, defined module forms (stat card, case snippet, testimonial block, comparison proof) and an explicit save-path template. It falls short of 5 because no sample output (an example stat card or gap-list entry) is shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with a NEEDS_INPUT stop, gated writes ('ask before writing'), and a step-6 self-check against done-when criteria. It misses the top anchor because the self-check is confirm-only — there is no fix-and-revalidate feedback loop if a check fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Data Sources, Instructions, Save Results, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) with clearly signaled one-level-deep references. It is not 5 because every link points outside the skill's own bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist) and the cross-reference prose is dense, leaving minor navigation gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |