Content
81%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 well-structured instruction skill with a validated five-step workflow, concrete templates, and appropriately offloaded detail in prompts.md and extract_text.py. Main improvements are deduplicating the repeated article-type and command sections, moving coverage priorities into prompts.md, and adding a worked example of real output highlights.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the article-type list (When to Use vs. Workflow step 3) and the extract_text.py command (Path B vs. step 2) — state each once and cross-reference to cut roughly 15 lines.
Add one worked example (short abstract input → final Highlights output) so the generation step shows, not just describes, the target quality.
Move the per-type 'Coverage priorities by type' table into references/prompts.md alongside the matching generation prompts to remove rule duplication.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is operational with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but contains trimmable redundancy: the article-type list appears twice ("When to Use" with 8 types and Workflow step 3 with 10 types) and the extraction command is repeated in both "Path B" and Workflow step 2. This matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed) rather than 3, since no section is padding or over-explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: an exact command ("python scripts/extract_text.py <file_path>"), a copy-paste output contract template, a refusal template, and hard limits ("Exactly 3-5 bullets", "Maximum 85 characters per English bullet"). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no worked input-to-output example of actual highlights, which matters for a generation task. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step workflow (validate sufficiency, extract, detect type, generate, self-critique) has an explicit validation checkpoint up front with a refusal contract, explicit failure handling ("report the exact failure... do not invent content from the missing file"), and a step-5 self-critique checklist — matching anchor 5 (explicit validation steps, feedback loops for error recovery, checklists). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md is an overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references that both exist (references/prompts.md holds classification/generation prompts; scripts/extract_text.py holds extraction). Minor gap: the inline "Coverage priorities by type" list in step 4 partially duplicates per-type rules already in prompts.md, matching anchor 4 (minor organization gaps) rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |