Content
68%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 content is well-organized and actionable with concrete code and API details, but the templated boilerplate adds padding, the batch workflow lacks an inline validation feedback loop, and a referenced guide path does not match the bundled file.
Suggestions
Add an inline validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g. after Stage 4, verify PMIDs resolve and citation numbering has no conflicts before final integration) to create a validate→fix→retry loop.
Fix the broken reference: change 'references/writing-guide.md' to the actual 'references/writing-guide-en.md'.
Remove the generic templated 'Use this skill when...' bullet lines that duplicate the description to tighten conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete commands, API endpoints, and citation formats, but includes templated boilerplate (e.g. 'Use this skill when a academic writing task needs a packaged method instead of ad-hoc freeform output') that repeats the description and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable code examples for search_references_for_theme and insert_references, concrete PubMed API URLs, and citation-format specs, with only minor gaps such as no full end-to-end CLI invocation. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-stage sequence is present, but this batch/reference-mutating operation lacks an inline validate→fix→retry feedback loop (validation lives only in a separate checklist), so the rubric's batch-operation cap holds workflow clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure with one-level-deep references to scripts and a writing guide, but the body links references/writing-guide.md while the actual bundle file is references/writing-guide-en.md, a broken reference that is a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |