Content
63%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 well-structured, domain-specific audit playbook with concrete thresholds, named directories, and a clear output format, but it is a long single-file document with some duplicated questions and no progressive disclosure into reference files. Splitting per-area checklists into referenced files and adding data-gathering/validation steps would lift the weakest dimensions.
Suggestions
Split the detailed per-area checklists (GBP audit, E-E-A-T breakdown, directory/NAP lists) into one-level-deep reference files (e.g., references/gbp-audit.md, references/eeat.md) and keep SKILL.md as a lean overview with clearly signaled links.
Remove duplicated intake questions (Google Business Profile ownership and directory listings are each asked twice across Initial Assessment sections) and drop explanations of concepts Claude already knows, such as the YMYL classification note.
Add concrete data-gathering and verification steps — e.g., how to check local pack presence and competitor reviews, and a checkpoint to confirm NAP consistency across listings before flagging it as a finding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly tight, actionable checklists, but it contains duplicated questions ("Do they have a Google Business Profile?" appears under both Current Visibility and Existing Assets; directory listings are asked about twice) and mild over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows ("Legal sites fall under Google's YMYL classification", "Most legal searches happen on mobile"). Not 4 because the duplication and explanation go beyond minor trimmable instances. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: specific thresholds ("LCP < 2.5s", "CLS < 0.1", "INP < 200ms"), named directories (OAB, Jusbrasil, Escavador, Avvo, FindLaw), a title tag format ("[Service] in [City] | [Firm Name]"), and a defined output report structure. Not 5 because it gives no concrete method for gathering data (e.g., how to check local pack presence, rankings, or competitor reviews). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present: Initial Assessment questions, a priority-ordered audit framework, per-area audit checklists, and a structured output format with a prioritized action plan. Not 5 because there are no explicit validation/checkpoint steps (e.g., how to verify a finding or confirm NAP consistency before reporting it), though the audit context carries no destructive-operation risk requiring a cap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single ~340-line file with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle; sections are well-organized with headers, but substantial detail (the full GBP checklist, E-E-A-T breakdown, directory lists) is inlined where separate reference files would keep SKILL.md a lean overview. Not 4 because most bulk detail lives inline rather than being split into clearly signaled one-level-deep references; not 2 because the section structure is good, not minimal. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |