Content
71%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 highly actionable skill with a clearly sequenced pipeline and explicit validation, but it is undermined by redundancy in the main body and poor use of its own bundle — most reference files are never pointed to, and their content is partially duplicated inline.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the figure requirement (stated in 'When to Use', 'Key Features', 'Stage B', and 'Implementation Details') and the 4.5:1 contrast rule, keeping each in one authoritative section.
Link the remaining bundle reference files (poster_layout_design.md, latex_poster_packages.md, pdf-extraction.md, poster_content_guide.md, troubleshooting.md) from SKILL.md and move the inlined layout/structuring details into them.
Add an explicit feedback loop after Stage F: what to fix and re-run when check_poster_quality.py reports failures.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete commands and no concept explanations, but it repeats the 'at least 2–3 figures' requirement in three places (When to Use, Key Features, Stage B, Implementation Details), restates the 4.5:1 contrast rule twice, and pads the dependency list with '(version not pinned)' seven times — more than the 'minor instances' allowed by the 4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every stage gives copy-paste-ready commands with concrete arguments (e.g., 'python scripts/generate_figures.py schematic "Cell signaling pathway" mechanism.png', 'python scripts/extract_metadata.py paper.pdf metadata.json'), plus install commands, expected output tree, and concrete example inputs covering the common cases. The only non-code step (agent HTML rendering) is an agent step by design and still has explicit requirements. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear (Stage A–F plus a one-command pipeline) with a mandatory validation checkpoint ('Stage F — Quality control', 'python scripts/check_poster_quality.py') and an explicit file policy. It falls short of the 5 anchor because there is no feedback loop — nothing instructs what to fix and re-run when the quality check fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body links only 2 of the 9 bundle reference files (design_principles.md, poster_quality_checklist.md); poster_layout_design.md, latex_poster_packages.md, pdf-extraction.md, poster_content_guide.md, troubleshooting.md and others are orphaned and undiscoverable, while layout/structuring detail that duplicates them is inlined in SKILL.md. This matches the 3 anchor ('references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline') better than the 4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |