Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
An actionable, well-organized skill body with executable examples and a complete argument reference. The main gap is an explicit validation/feedback loop for destructive edits, which caps workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint for destructive edit operations (e.g., replace_text/delete_text): read after edit to confirm the change, and retry if the find string was not matched.
Tighten the Practical Rules section, which repeats the Desktop/Editor auto-open guidance already stated in the intro paragraph.
For set_cells and create_chart, note how to verify the result (e.g., re-read the range or confirm the chart object) so batch/visual operations have a feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and task-focused with executable JSON examples and an argument reference, avoiding explanation of known Office/ODF concepts; minor rule repetition in Practical Rules but no padded fluff. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready, fully executable tool_args examples for create/read/edit/append/set_cells/create_chart plus a complete per-format operation list and argument reference. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered workflow with a read-before-edit step exists, but there is no explicit validate-then-proceed feedback loop for destructive operations like replace_text/delete_text, leaving checkpoints implicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body is self-contained with well-organized labeled sections, which is appropriate for a single-file skill per the scoring notes. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |