Content
50%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 actionable with concrete CLI and Python examples and a real bundled script, but it is weighed down by extensive generic template boilerplate and redundant input/output sections. It also inlines reference-file content and cites a missing examples directory, weakening progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Remove or consolidate the generic template sections (Output Requirements, Output Contract, Response Template, Failure/Error Handling, Risk/Security Checklists, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) that do not add skill-specific value, to improve conciseness.
Replace the boilerplate Workflow steps with a concrete polishing sequence (e.g. classify response_type, identify defensive phrases, apply transformation from tone_patterns.md, verify position preserved via Quality Checklist) with an explicit validation checkpoint.
De-duplicate 'Polite Academic Expressions' and 'Tone Patterns Detected' by pointing to references/polite_expressions.json and references/tone_patterns.md instead of inlining them, and either create references/examples/ or remove the dangling reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is noticeably verbose and padded with generic template boilerplate (Output Requirements, Response Template, Output Contract, Failure Handling, Error Handling, Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) plus overlapping input/output sections ('When to Use'/'When Not to Use', 'Input Parameters'/'Required Inputs'/'Input Validation', 'Output Format'/'Output Contract'), matching 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'; not a 3 because the redundancy is extensive rather than incidental. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready guidance: CLI invocations ('python scripts/main.py --interactive', '--reviewer-comment', '--polish-level heavy'), a Python API example importing TonePolisher, a parameter table, and a JSON output schema, matching 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'; not 5 because the Python API snippet is not verified against the bundled script's actual interface. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A 5-step Workflow is present but the steps are generic template language ('Confirm the user objective...', 'Return a structured result that separates assumptions, deliverables, risks...') rather than a concrete sequence for the polishing task, and there are no validation checkpoints tied to the actual transformation; a separate Quality Checklist provides implicit validation, which keeps it at 3 rather than lower. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is reasonable and real reference files (polite_expressions.json, tone_patterns.md, scripts/main.py) are signaled, but the 'Polite Academic Expressions' and 'Tone Patterns Detected' sections duplicate content that already lives in those reference files, and the References section points to a non-existent 'references/examples/' directory, matching 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |