Content
71%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 lean, well-structured, actionable guide for a simple single-purpose skill, with a clear workflow and a copy-paste example. Its main weakness is redundancy between the intro and the practical-rules section, which slightly hurts token efficiency.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the practical rules: the ODT/DOCX preference and Editor-surface behavior are already stated in the intro paragraphs, so trim the repeated bullets.
Add a minimal patch example alongside the create example so the edit case is as concrete as the create case.
Vary the repeated 'unless the user explicitly asks' phrasing to reduce padding in the Editor-surface paragraph.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'Practical rules' duplicate the intro (ODT/DOCX preference and Editor-surface guidance are each stated twice) and 'unless the user explicitly asks' repeats, so it is mostly efficient with notable redundancy that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | A concrete, copy-paste JSON example for text_editor write plus specific patch-vs-write guidance is executable, but only the create case is exemplified — the common edit/patch case lacks a concrete example, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow (decide, create, read-then-patch/write, report) is clearly sequenced for a simple non-destructive skill, with the final report step as a soft checkpoint, but there is no explicit verify-the-write validation step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, self-contained with no need for external references, and well-organized into clear sections (intro, Workflow, example, practical rules), satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |