Content
75%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 highly actionable and well-structured with clear workflow and validation guidance, but it carries an irrelevant copy-pasted note about survival-analysis statistics that hurts conciseness and could mislead.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Note on group parameter' paragraph about log-rank tests and Cox regression, which is unrelated to date calculation and appears to be copy-paste drift from another skill.
Either link references/guidelines.md from the body or remove the stub file so the reference structure is consistently signaled.
Add a brief validate->fix->retry loop to the Workflow so a failed run explicitly routes back to validation rather than only to the fallback path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with a clear parameters table and command examples, but includes an irrelevant 'Note on group parameter' about log-rank tests and Cox regression that has nothing to do with a date calculator and is pure padding/drift. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste ready commands, a full parameter table, concrete usage examples, and concrete JSON output samples covering the common gestational and follow-up cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence with a Quick Check validation block, explicit input validation rules, and a fallback template; not a 5 because there is no explicit validate-fix-retry loop, though date calculation is not destructive so the cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with the executable script referenced by path throughout, but references/guidelines.md exists as a near-empty stub that is never signaled from the body, a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |