Content
86%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill with concrete rules, specific cadences, and a closing quality gate. Its main gap is the absence of a worked example to make the guidance fully copy-paste ready, and an explicit revise-and-recheck loop in the quality gate.
Suggestions
Add one short annotated example cold email (and/or a forwardable warm-intro blurb) so the structural rules map to a concrete, copy-paste-ready output.
Turn the Quality Gate into an explicit feedback loop: state that if any gate item fails, the draft should be revised and re-checked before delivery.
Optionally add a one-line note clarifying when to invoke `brand-voice` versus when to proceed without it, to remove ambiguity in the Voice Handling section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative throughout, with no concept explanations Claude already knows; every section (Core Rules, Hard Bans, cadence, Quality Gate) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout (5-part cold email structure, exact banned phrases, 'under 100 words' blurb limit, day 0/4-5/10-12 cadence), but no worked example or template showing a finished message, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequences are clear (cold email structure, follow-up cadence with an explicit stop point) and a Quality Gate acts as a pre-delivery validation checklist, but there is no explicit 'if the gate fails, revise and re-check' feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections, self-contained with no nested references, and easy to navigate; the only cross-reference (`brand-voice`) is a sibling skill, not a bundle file, so no file-splitting is needed. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |