Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-organized, and actionable with concrete research steps and an explicit output contract. Its one gap is the absence of an explicit validation/verification checkpoint in the workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step in the research workflow, e.g. 'Before recommending, confirm each probability has a timestamp, source link, and assessed liquidity/spread; re-check any flagged market.'
Provide a concrete rendered output template (not just a 6-item list) so the Output Contract is copy-paste ready and the recommendation is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — guardrails are terse bullets and workflow steps are crisp, so every token earns its place per the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance is given throughout: a 6-step numbered workflow with named signal-quality factors (liquidity, spread, market age, resolution authority) and an explicit Output Contract; per the code-vs-instruction note, the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step research workflow is clearly sequenced and ends in a usable/weak/unsuitable recommendation, but it lacks an explicit validation/verification gate or feedback loop of the kind the anchor-3 example shows ('Validate... If errors: fix and re-validate... Only when valid'). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized sections (Guardrails, Research Workflow, Integration Patterns, Output Contract), no nested references and no need for external bundle files, matching the anchor for clear, well-organized one-level structure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |