Content
67%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 a well-structured, clearly sequenced analysis workflow with concrete actionable steps and proper progressive disclosure into real reference files. Its main weaknesses are restated constraints across multiple sections and advisory rather than enforced validation loops.
Suggestions
Collapse the redundant constraints in "Hard Rules" and "What This Skill Should Not Do" into a single concise list, since both restate the execution-step rules.
Make Step 8 an explicit verify-and-retry loop: if the self-critical review finds an incomplete audit or a pseudo-gap risk, state that you return to retrieval or re-audit before finalizing.
Either link references/workflow-step-template.md at the relevant step or remove it from the bundle so all reference files are reachable from the body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient procedural guidance with no basic-concept padding, but the Hard Rules, "What This Skill Should Not Do", and the execution steps restate the same constraints multiple times (e.g., "Never fabricate references" and "do not treat generic upgrade suggestions as real gaps"). Not a 4 because the redundancy across sections could be tightened, and not a 2 because nothing is concept-explanation padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | An instruction-only skill with concrete per-step guidance—named retrieval sources (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, arXiv), explicit audit bullets, a gap taxonomy, and confidence criteria—delegating retrieval/citation specifics to reference files. Not a 5 because the executable retrieval and citation methodology lives in bundled references rather than inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 8-step process ("always run in order") with confidence-gating checkpoints and a Step 8 self-critical review checklist including a fallback path. Not a 5 because validation is advisory ("explicitly check") rather than an enforced verify-and-retry loop, with no explicit iteration back to retrieval when review surfaces an incomplete audit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-signaled one-level-deep references placed at each relevant step, and all four referenced files exist in references/. Not a 5 because references/workflow-step-template.md is present in the bundle yet never linked from the body, a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |