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 and actionable with a complete executable example and concrete edit verbs, well-organized for a simple single-purpose skill. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit verification step after edits in a document-manipulation workflow.
Suggestions
Add a post-edit verification step to the Edit workflow (e.g., 're-read with the read action to confirm the change saved correctly before reporting success').
Include one complete edit tool-call example (e.g., a replace_text invocation with file_id and arguments) to mirror the completeness of the create example.
Note how errors from the office_artifact action should be detected and handled, since editing documents is a destructive operation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive ('Use ODT...', 'Treat DOCX as a compatibility export') with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line conveys product-specific behavioral rules that earn their tokens. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a complete, copy-paste-ready create tool call (full tool_args JSON) plus a concrete named set of edit operations (set_text, append_text, replace_text, etc.) and a read-before-edit precondition. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Create and Edit are clearly sequenced and the read-before-edit precondition is stated, but this document-manipulation workflow lacks an explicit post-edit validation/verification checkpoint, which caps it at 2 per the feedback-loop guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill (~33 lines, single task) with no external references needed; it is organized into clear sections (# Writer Documents, ## Workflow, Practical rules) and the bundle directories contain no files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |