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.
A strongly structured, domain-specific instruction skill: a clear seven-step design sequence, explicit decision gates, a done-when checklist, and well-signaled one-level references to shared framework files. Its main costs are token efficiency — the ownership boundaries are repeated five to six times, nearly doubling the necessary length — and the absence of a worked example ladder, which is the only gap between its guidance and a copy-paste-ready output.
Suggestions
State the N-sub-item ownership boundaries once (e.g., in the Scope guard) and reference them elsewhere with a single clause — the intro, Skill Contract, Done-when, Instruction 7, and Next Best Skill sections all repeat the same email-sequence-designer / preference-frequency-manager routing verbatim.
Add a short worked example of the offer ladder with concrete timings (e.g., Day 0 soft touch → Day 10 incentive → Day 24 last-chance → Day 40 sunset-confirm) and the two terminal states, so the expected output shape is unambiguous.
Collapse the Skill Contract's expected-output paragraph and the Done-when list into one section — they currently restate the same five deliverables back to back.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body contains no basic-concept padding (it never explains what email or consent is), but the same ownership/routing fact — engagement-decay/sunset belongs to email-sequence-designer and preference-center/frequency to preference-frequency-manager — is restated nearly verbatim in the intro, Skill Contract, Done-when, Instruction 7, the Scope guard, Reference Materials, and Next Best Skill. That is several padded sections beyond the 4 anchor's "minor instances that could be trimmed", but it is redundancy of domain-specific content rather than the over-explanation of the 2 anchor, landing between anchors at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: exact window examples ("no open in 90 days, no click in 180"), per-step ladder content including sample copy ("still want to hear from us?"), a numeric touch cap ("typically 3–4 across the whole ladder"), profile weights (0.15/0.30/0.15/0.20), a concrete save path, and copy-paste Quick Start prompts. It stops short of the 5 anchor because there is no worked example of the primary deliverable — a sample offer ladder with actual delays and terminal states would make the output format copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Instructions 1–7 are a clearly sequenced design workflow with checkpoints: Decision Gates (explicit stop-and-ask vs continue-silently conditions), a Done-when checklist, Measured/Estimated data-provenance labeling, and a cross-skill feedback loop ("if it returns BLOCK on N1, route back here to repair"). The batch-suppression cap does not apply because suppression is validated before design (no-response window, re-permission branch, and the stop-gate against unknown lawful basis). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because final verification of the program is delegated wholesale to email-quality-auditor rather than including any in-skill validation of the finished program. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist in this skill directory, and the body is a well-sectioned ~78-line overview whose Reference Materials section signals each external file with a one-line description of its contents (send-benchmark.md, skill-contract.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md) — all one level deep, no reference chains. It misses the 5 anchor because the contract/routing content that is repeated inline (the ownership boundaries restated in five places) is exactly the material the shared references already carry, and the referenced paths (../../../references/...) cannot be resolved from the skill bundle itself. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |