Content
70%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-orchestrated, instruction-only skill: explicit ordered workflow with self-validation checkpoints, a mandatory output structure, and clean one-level-deep reference integration. Its main weakness is token efficiency — four sections restate the same rules that the 8-step execution and Hard Rules already establish — and the absence of a worked example showing what a good output looks like.
Suggestions
Consolidate the overlapping directive sections: 'Core Function', 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and 'Quality Standard' largely restate the 8-step execution and 'Hard Rules' — merge them into one section (e.g., keep Hard Rules plus a short should/should-not pair) to cut substantial duplication.
Add one compact worked example in the output guidance — a vague idea transformed into one primary aim, a secondary aim, and a testable vs exploratory classification — so the expected output style is demonstrated rather than implied.
State each core rule once: 'separate confirmatory from exploratory components' is repeated across at least five sections; keep it in the relevant execution step and the hard-rules list, and drop the rest.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body restates the same directives across four separate sections — 'Core Function' (9 items), 'Hard Rules' (15 items), 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and 'Quality Standard' (10 items) — which substantially overlap the 8-step execution and each other; 'separate confirmatory from exploratory' alone appears in at least five sections. This is noticeably verbose with several padded sections, matching the score-2 anchor rather than score 3 ('some unnecessary explanation' — here the redundancy is systemic, not occasional). It is not a 1 because it never explains concepts Claude already knows and each individual section is internally tight. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: 8 ordered execution steps each specifying exactly what to identify, a mandatory output structure with defined content for Sections A–J, input-validation examples, and a scripted out-of-scope redirect. Per the rubric's code_vs_instruction note, the absence of code is not penalized. It falls short of 5 because there is no worked example (e.g., a before/after transformation of a vague idea into a disciplined aim), leaving the expected output style implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8 steps are explicitly ordered ('always run in order'), each mapped to specific reference modules, and include validation checkpoints with feedback loops: Step 7 detects failure modes and directs a conservative rewrite, and Step 8 is a self-critical review checklist with five explicit checks before finalizing. Output completeness is further enforced by the mandatory section structure. This matches the top anchor — clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loop, and checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All seven reference files cited in the body exist in references/, are compact (11–40 lines), and contain no nested references — exactly one level deep. Each citation is well-signaled with its purpose and mapped to specific output sections (e.g., 'references/aim-hierarchy-framework.md → define primary, secondary, and optional supporting aims in Sections B–D'), and SKILL.md functions as a clear overview. The body is long, but its content is workflow orchestration rather than detail that belongs in reference files. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |