Content
85%Reviews 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, actionable instruction-only skill with concrete per-type output contracts, a copy-paste refusal template, a sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints, and a real, clearly signaled helper script. Its main weakness is redundancy: type-recognition guidance is restated across several sections and could be consolidated.
Suggestions
Consolidate the type-detection guidance so each type's input signals appear in one place — 'When to Use', 'Type Recognition Rules', and 'Examples of Accepted Inputs' overlap heavily; merge the signal lists into a single table and keep examples as brief illustrations only.
Tighten 'When to Use' / 'When Not to Use' / 'Required Inputs' into one short eligibility section to remove near-duplicated framing about biomedomain and outline-vs-manuscript intent.
Consider moving the per-type 'Output Contract' required-section lists into a single compact matrix (type → required sections) to reduce repeated section headers and token count.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and does not over-explain concepts Claude knows, but type-detection content recurs redundantly across 'When to Use', 'Type Recognition Rules', and 'Examples of Accepted Inputs'; this matches the score-2 anchor (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than the every-token-earns-its-place score-3 level, and is not padded with known-concept explanations (score 1). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Quotes the per-type 'Must include' section lists (e.g. '4-6 major chapters', '2-3 subchapters'), the copy-paste 'Fallback and Refusal Contract' text block, and concrete formatting rules ('Markdown headings only: #, ##, ###'); for an instruction-only skill the guidance is specific and copy-paste ready, matching the score-3 anchor rather than pseudocode/vague levels. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation step ('1. Validate domain and sufficiency'), a fallback/retry loop for weak input, a 'Final safety and writing pass' checkpoint, and a closing 'Completion Checklist'; this matches the score-3 sequence+checkpoints anchor, and the destructive-operation cap-at-2 rule does not apply to outline generation. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single referenced path 'scripts/validate_skill.py --check' resolves to a real, clearly signaled file, the body is well-organized with distinct navigable sections, and there is no nested/multi-level reference chain; the inline operational guidance is appropriately self-contained for this scope rather than reference material that should be split out, matching the score-3 anchor and avoiding the monolithic/nested score-1 and should-be-separate score-2 cases. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |