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 well-structured, actionable research-planning skill with a clear ordered workflow, a mandatory validation gate, and excellent one-level-deep progressive disclosure into eight real reference files. The main weakness is verbosity from rules and mandatory-section emphasis repeated across the steps, hard-rules list, and output sections.
Suggestions
Consolidate the citation/DOI verification rules into one canonical location (e.g. references/literature-retrieval-and-citation.md) and have Step 4.5, Section I, and Hard Rules 11-13 reference it instead of restating the same constraints three times.
De-duplicate the dataset-disclaimer, minimal-executable-subset, and dependency-formula rules: state each once in the relevant step and have the Hard Rules cross-reference rather than re-spell them.
Trim the repeated 'mandatory in every output / do not omit' emphasis by collecting all mandatory sections into a single checklist near the end, reducing redundant admonitions scattered through Steps 6-7.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Content is substantive procedural guidance that does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but it carries notable redundancy: citation/DOI rules appear three times (Step 4.5, Hard Rules 11-13, Section I), the dataset disclaimer twice, and the minimal-subset and dependency-formula rules twice each. Not a 4 because the repetition is clearly tighten-able padding; not a 2 because the core content earns its place rather than being padded fluff. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: five named study patterns, four configs with explicit modules, dependency-selection formulas, and output sections A-J with required contents. Not a 5 because the granular executable method/tool detail is deferred to reference files rather than covered inline for the common cases; not a 3 because the structural guidance is specific and actionable, not pseudocode-level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven steps are explicitly ordered, and Step 5 is a mandatory dependency-consistency gate with a revise-before-output feedback loop, plus a Hard Rules checklist. Not a 5 because the validation is conceptual self-checking rather than a concrete verification step (the top anchor expects an executable validation command); not a 3 because checkpoints and a feedback loop are clearly present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an orchestration overview that signals eight one-level-deep reference files (study-patterns, workload-configurations, literature-retrieval-and-citation, workflow-step-template, analysis-modules, method-library, figure-deliverable-plan, validation-evidence-hierarchy), all verified to exist and linked with clear markdown navigation. Content is appropriately split between overview and detail, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |