Content
42%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise and well-structured with a clear sequenced workflow, but it is largely abstract guidance lacking concrete, executable instructions or validation feedback loops, which limits its actionability.
Suggestions
Replace abstract steps with concrete, executable guidance — name specific tools, commands, or query techniques for searching and extracting web content.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint with a feedback loop, e.g. 'If sources conflict, search additional authoritative sources before summarizing.'
Trim the generic Requirements section or convert it into concrete, named tool capabilities rather than vague ability statements.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and well-organized into clear sections, but the generic Requirements lines and lightly padded Best Practices/Examples could be tightened, so not every token earns its place. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance like 'Use browser to search multiple sources' and 'Cross-reference facts across sources' is abstract direction with no concrete commands, code, or specific tool invocations — it describes rather than instructs. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step Research Process is clearly sequenced, but verification appears as a plain step with no validation checkpoint or feedback loop for when cross-referencing fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the skill is under 50 lines, yet it is well-organized into clearly labeled sections, so the simple-skill allowance permits a full score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |