Content
56%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 reasonably organized, moderately lean overview with a clear sequenced approach that includes explicit verification steps, but it stops short of being actionable: no example queries, concrete tool-use patterns, or evaluation criteria are provided. It also carries generic boilerplate and a dangling reference to a nonexistent playbook file.
Suggestions
Replace abstract bullets with a worked example: one sample research objective, the 3-5 actual query variations generated for it, the allowed_domains/blocked_domains applied, and how the results were synthesized.
Cut the circular "Use this skill when" / "Do not use" / "Instructions" boilerplate (that content belongs in the description) and remove bullets that restate knowledge Claude already has (quoted phrases, negative keywords, tool parameter names).
Fix the dangling reference: `resources/implementation-playbook.md` does not exist in the bundle — either create the file with the detailed examples or remove the pointer.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient bullet-style prose with no padded paragraphs, but it includes circular boilerplate that adds nothing ("Working on search specialist tasks or workflows", "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") and several bullets restate knowledge Claude already has (quoted phrases for exact matches, negative keywords, allowed_domains/blocked_domains as known tool parameters). More than 'minor instances' of over-explanation, so anchor 3 fits better than anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete directives exist ("Create 3-5 query variations for coverage", "allowed_domains for trusted sources", "blocked_domains to exclude unreliable sites"), but there are no example queries, tool-call patterns, templates, or criteria for evaluating result quality, and much of the guidance stays high-level ("Understand the research objective clearly", "Focus on actionable insights"). This matches anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details') better than anchor 2, given the specific numbers and named parameters. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Approach section lays out a clear numbered sequence ("1. Understand the research objective... 2. Create 3-5 query variations... 3. Search broadly first, then refine 4. Verify key facts across multiple sources 5. Track contradictions and consensus") with verification checkpoints explicitly listed rather than implicit, so anchor 3 does not fit. The gap is the missing error-recovery feedback loop (no guidance on what to do when verification fails or sources conflict), a minor-to-moderate validation gap consistent with anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with clear headers (Focus Areas, Search Strategies, Approach, Output), but the bundle contains no files at all and the sole external pointer — "If detailed examples are required, open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`" — resolves to a nonexistent path, sending Claude to a dead end. Structure is decent but the one reference is broken and the trigger/gating boilerplate belongs in the description, matching anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |