Content
31%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.
The body is structurally sectioned but severely undermined by verbatim description duplication, generic boilerplate, and code/CLI/reference examples that do not match the actual bundled `scripts/main.py` or `references/`. It reads as templated padding rather than skill-specific executable guidance.
Suggestions
Replace the Quick Start and Command Line Usage examples with the real API: `scripts/main.py` with `--source`, `--target`, `--mode {bridge,complete-graph,hypothesis,landscape}`, `--output {json,markdown}`, and reference the actual classes (BridgeAnalyzer, KnowledgeGraph) instead of the non-existent CollaborationFinder.
Remove the verbatim re-pastes of the description from "When to Use" and "Key Features", and trim the generic Output Requirements / Error Handling / Input Validation / Response Template boilerplate to only skill-specific points.
Fix the References section: delete the duplicated block and remove the non-existent `guide.md`, `examples/`, and `api-docs/` entries, keeping only the real `references/audit-reference.md` (or create the files if they are intended to exist).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The frontmatter description is pasted verbatim into both "When to Use" and "Key Features", and the body carries large generic boilerplate blocks (Output Requirements, Error Handling, Input Validation, Response Template, Implementation Details) that restate process guidance Claude already knows, making it noticeably verbose with several padded sections. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | The Quick Start imports `from scripts.interdisciplinary import CollaborationFinder` and the CLI example uses `--my-field/--find-collaborators`, but the actual bundle is `scripts/main.py` exposing `BridgeAnalyzer`/`KnowledgeGraph` with flags `--source/--target/--mode/--output`, so the headline code and command examples are non-executable fabrications rather than copy-paste-ready guidance. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A sequenced 5-step Workflow and an example run plan exist with a scope-validation gate and a documented fallback path, plus a Quick Check (`py_compile`), but the steps are generic process boilerplate unrelated to the actual bridge-finding analysis and lack checkpoints tied to the script's real output validation. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body claims `references/guide.md`, `references/examples/`, and `references/api-docs/` which do not exist (only `references/audit-reference.md` is real), and the References section is duplicated (lines 174-178 and 206-208), so navigation is misleading despite the presence of section headers. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 9 / 20 Passed |