Content
71%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 highly actionable, well-organized CLI usage guide with concrete commands, clear workflow sequencing, and explicit exit codes. Its main weaknesses are redundant use-case sections and references to bundle files that are not present to verify.
Suggestions
Merge the duplicated 'When to Use This Skill' and 'Best Use Cases' sections into one, and drop the verbatim repeat of the description in the intro.
Add brief error-recovery guidance for exit code 1 (e.g. retry after timeout, check GEMINI_API_KEY) to close the feedback-loop gap.
Either ship the referenced scripts/research.py and requirements.txt in the bundle or move inlined reference material (cost/token table, use-case detail) into a references file with clear links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | "When to Use This Skill" and "Best Use Cases" duplicate nearly the same list (market analysis, competitive landscaping, literature reviews, due diligence), and the opening line repeats the frontmatter description verbatim. Mostly efficient but with clear tightening opportunities; not 4 because whole-section duplication exceeds minor trimming, not 2 because there is no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every section gives copy-paste-ready commands with concrete flags (--query, --format, --stream, --no-wait, --status, --wait, --continue, --list) plus exact exit codes, covering the common cases. Fully executable guidance matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Workflow section lays out a clear 5-step sequence with monitoring checkpoints (--stream / --status) and wait behavior, and Exit Codes document outcomes. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery guidance for exit code 1 (API error, timeout) — no fix-and-retry loop; not 3 because sequence and checkpoints are explicit and the skill is non-destructive. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-sectioned, but it references scripts/research.py and requirements.txt that are not present in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist), and inline detail like the cost/token table could live in a reference file. Fits anchor 3 (structure present but references problematic); not 4 because unverifiable/missing referenced files are more than a minor organization gap. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |