Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
An actionable, clearly sequenced research workflow with concrete tool calls and verification rules, held back mainly by a monolithic single-file structure and a slightly verbose report template. Splitting supporting material into referenced files would push it higher.
Suggestions
Move the full report markdown scaffold into a referenced file (e.g. report-template.md) and keep only a brief structural summary inline, to improve progressive disclosure and conciseness.
Trim or remove the trailing "Examples" section — its trigger phrases duplicate the "When to Activate" list without adding actionable guidance.
Consider extracting the "Quality Rules" into a short referenced checklist so the main workflow stays focused on the procedural steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the ~30-line report scaffold and the trailing "Examples" section (which repeats trigger phrasing) could be tightened without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready MCP tool calls with arguments (e.g. firecrawl_search(query, limit: 8), crawling_exa(url, tokensNum: 5000)) plus specific numeric targets like "15-30 unique sources" and "3-5 key sources." | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Six steps are clearly sequenced (Understand → Plan → Execute → Deep-Read → Synthesize → Deliver) with branching guidance and a "Quality Rules" checklist serving as explicit verification (cross-reference, flag unverified, acknowledge gaps). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized but the skill is a single ~150-line monolithic file with no bundle files or one-level-deep references to split out the report template or quality rules. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |