Content
75%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 well-structured, highly actionable workflow: concrete MCP tool calls with parameters, quantified search strategy, a complete report template, and a quality-rules checklist. The main improvement areas are making the parallel-subagent section executable (actual Task tool syntax) and moving the long report template into a reference file.
Suggestions
Replace the pseudocode block in 'Parallel Research with Subagents' with an example of the actual Task/Agent tool invocation including the prompt each research agent should receive.
Move the full markdown report template into a references/report-template.md file and link to it, keeping only the section list inline in SKILL.md.
Merge the 'Examples' section into 'When to Activate' (they duplicate each other) to trim tokens, and add an explicit Step 6 checkpoint such as verifying every claim has a citation before delivering.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative and assumes Claude's competence throughout, with only minor trims available: the 'Examples' section largely duplicates the 'When to Activate' trigger list, and 'Both together give the best coverage' adds little — efficient with minor instances of over-explanation rather than the every-token-earns-its-place 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready MCP call signatures with real parameters (firecrawl_search limit: 8, crawling_exa tokensNum: 5000) plus numeric targets (2-3 keyword variations, 15-30 sources, 3-5 deep reads) make this mostly executable; the parallel-research section never shows the actual Task tool invocation and 'Configure in ~/.claude.json' gives no how, which are the minor gaps that keep it below fully-executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with a skip condition in Step 1 and delivery branching in Step 6 form a clear sequence; research is not a destructive or batch operation so no cap applies, but there is no explicit verify-report-before-delivering checkpoint, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than the explicit-validation 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the ~150-line body is well-sectioned with clear headers; the ~30-line report template is arguably content that belongs in a reference file, which is a minor organization gap placing it at good-structure rather than the appropriately-split 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |