Content
72%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.
A concise, mostly actionable skill body that is well-structured for its size. The main gap is the missing validation/feedback checkpoint in the edit workflow, which the rubric caps at 3 for document manipulation.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/verification step to the edit workflow (e.g., re-read the document or confirm the change saved correctly before proceeding) to lift workflow_clarity above the document-manipulation cap of 3.
Provide a complete copy-paste JSON example for the edit action — not just the action-name list — so both create and edit paths are fully executable.
Tighten the UI/Desktop paragraph by consolidating the repeated no-auto-open guidance and the list of faux-label prohibitions into a single concise rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean with no concept padding and a tight code example, but the UI/Desktop paragraph restates the no-auto-open rule and stacks several "do not" clauses that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The create path is a complete, copy-paste JSON example, but the edit path only enumerates action names (set_text, append_text, …) without a full second executable example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The edit workflow lists a clear 3-step sequence but has no validation/verification checkpoint; per the rubric, document-manipulation workflows without validation are capped at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections (# Writer Documents / ## Workflow / Create / Edit / Practical rules), meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |