Content
77%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, highly actionable planning skill with excellent workflow sequencing (mandatory dependency validation with a revise-before-output loop) and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure across eight real reference files. The main weaknesses are redundancy — roughly half of the 23 Hard Rules restate requirements already specified in the steps and output sections — and a few vague comparative descriptors in the config tables.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the Hard Rules: fold rules that restate Sections D/G/I/J/C.5 requirements (rules 15, 17, 18, 20–23) into a short checklist that references those sections, and merge rules 11–13 into Step 4.5's existing rules.
Replace relative adjectives in the config table ('richer public validation', 'stronger reviewer-facing limitations') with concrete, countable module lists so the Advanced and Publication+ rows are as actionable as the Standard row.
Drop the 'Sample Triggers' section or merge it into the Input Validation examples, since the two lists substantially overlap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, directive, and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is a PPI network' padding), but it is noticeably redundant: the 23 Hard Rules restate mandates already detailed in the execution steps and Sections A–J (rules 11–13 duplicate Step 4.5; 15/17 duplicate Section G; 18 duplicates Step 5; 20–23 duplicate Sections C.5, I, D, and J), and 'Sample Triggers' partially overlaps the Input Validation examples. This fits 'Mostly efficient but... could be tightened' rather than 2, because the repetition is instructional emphasis, not concept explanation or fluff. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact input format with four worked examples, a verbatim redirect script, pattern-selection and config tables, explicit dependency formulas ('overlap + hub genes + public validation + immune infiltration'), a verbatim Dataset Disclaimer line, defined output sections A–J, and specific retrieval counts — appropriate for an instruction-only skill. Minor gaps keep it below 5: several config descriptors rely on relative adjectives ('richer public validation', 'stronger reviewer-facing limitations', 'clearer claim-boundary control') rather than concrete module lists, and there is no worked example of a finished plan output. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven steps are sequenced in fixed order with an explicit pre-output validation checkpoint: Step 5 ('Dependency Consistency Check (mandatory before output)') with the feedback loop 'If any dependency inconsistency is found, revise the plan before outputting', an input fallback in Step 1 ('infer a reasonable default and state assumptions'), a stop-and-redirect for out-of-scope requests, and a fallback plan requirement in Section J. This matches 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md functions as a well-organized overview with eight clearly signaled, one-level-deep references ('→ Detailed pattern logic: [references/study-patterns.md]', etc.), all of which exist and contain no nested references. Detailed material (8-field step template, config tables, module and method libraries, citation standards) is appropriately split into the reference files, matching 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |