Content
50%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 well-structured but inert template whose steps instruct the skill author rather than providing executable guidance for a task. It is concise enough but offers no real actionability or workflow a finished skill would run.
Suggestions
Replace the placeholder authoring instructions ('State the inputs...', 'Describe the work...') with concrete, executable guidance or code the real skill would run.
Remove the 'A skill is a named playbook...' explanation of concepts Claude already knows to tighten token efficiency.
If the skill will perform risky or batch operations, add explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoints to the Steps sequence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short but opens by explaining 'A skill is a named playbook the agent can invoke by referring to this file' — a concept Claude already knows — so it is mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation that could be trimmed, not the lean 4 or padded-below 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The Steps ('State the inputs the skill needs', 'Describe the work') are high-level authoring hints with no executable code or commands, matching 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A three-step sequence is listed and ordered, but the steps are meta-instructions to the author with no validation checkpoints, fitting 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'; not a 2 because the sequence is reasonably defined. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed and clearly organized into 'When to use' and 'Steps' sections, qualifying for the simple-skill exception where well-organized sections earn a 5 without bundle files. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |