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.
The body delivers an exceptionally well-sequenced, validation-heavy planning workflow with excellent progressive disclosure into a verified, one-level-deep reference bundle. Its main weakness is token efficiency: the 23-item Hard Rules section and repeated disclaimer text duplicate mandates already stated in the execution steps and output sections, inflating the skill's size without adding instruction.
Suggestions
Consolidate the Hard Rules: rules 2–4, 12–13, 15–17, and 21–23 duplicate the Step 3/4, Step 4.5, Section D, Section G, Section I, and Section J requirements nearly verbatim — either delete the duplicates or compress them into a short cross-reference table (rule → section) to cut ~25% of the body without losing any instruction.
State the Dataset Disclaimer text once (e.g., in workflow-step-template.md, where it already exists) and reference it from the body and Hard Rule 22 rather than repeating the full verbatim block in multiple places.
Add a compact worked example (e.g., one filled 8-field workflow step and one filled Section J element from a sample disease/process-gene case) to close the actionability gap and make the required output format copy-paste concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and mostly efficient — it never explains concepts Claude already knows (no WGCNA/limma tutorials) — but it is padded by systematic duplication: Hard Rules 2–4, 12–13, 15–17, and 21–23 restate the Step 3/4, Step 4.5, Section G, Section D, Section I, and Section J mandates almost verbatim, and the Dataset Disclaimer text appears in full both in the body and in reference files. A meaningful fraction of the Hard Rules section could be trimmed with no loss of instruction, matching the "mostly efficient but could be tightened" anchor rather than the noticeably-padded level 2, since every duplication is at least procedural rather than concept explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: pattern-selection and config tables, a data-type-driven DESeq2/limma decision rule, minimum retrieval counts ("2–4 disease/process biology background references"), explicit dependency formulas, and a fully specified 6-element self-critical review. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because there is no worked example of a (even partially) filled-out plan section, which would make the required output format unambiguous rather than derivable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7 steps are always run in order, with an explicit pre-output validation checkpoint (Step 5: "If any dependency inconsistency is found, revise the plan before outputting"), a verbatim out-of-scope redirect script with a stop condition, an unavailable-search fallback (output a search strategy instead of fake references), and mandatory checklists (dependency checks, Section J risk review). This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation steps, and error-recovery feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a navigable overview that points to eight well-signaled, one-level-deep references ("→ Detailed pattern logic: references/study-patterns.md" etc.) at exactly the point each is needed. Verified against the bundle: all eight referenced files exist, each is leaf content with no nested references, and there are no orphan files in references/. This matches the top anchor for structure and navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |