Content
81%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced planning framework with explicit validation checkpoints and a clean reference structure. Its main weaknesses are redundancy between the Hard Rules and the step definitions, and three bundle files that lack navigation pointers from the main skill.
Suggestions
Consolidate the Hard Rules section: rules that duplicate Step 4.5 (12–14), Step 3 (2), Step 4 (3), and the mandatory-section requirements of Steps 6–7 (15, 17, 20–23) could be replaced by a short pointer to the corresponding steps, cutting significant duplicated tokens.
Add inline reference links for the three orphaned bundle files (references/analysis-modules.md, references/method-library.md, references/workflow-step-template.md) from the relevant steps so their content is discoverable during execution.
Tighten Step 6, which mostly repeats the Step 7 section list, by merging the duplicated output inventory into the mandatory-sections step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient instruction content with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but the 23-item Hard Rules section extensively restates rules already specified in the steps — e.g., rules 12–14 duplicate Step 4.5's citation rules verbatim in substance, and rules 15/17/20/21/23 restate the mandatory-section requirements of Steps 6–7 — so it could be meaningfully tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete instruction-only guidance: exact input format ("[cancer type] + [target gene] + [validation direction or emphasis]"), worked example inputs, pattern and config selection tables, verbatim redirect and Dataset Disclaimer templates, and a fully specified A–J output section list with per-section content requirements. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7 steps are explicitly ordered ("always run in order"), and Step 5 is a genuine validation checkpoint ("Dependency Consistency Check (mandatory before output)") with an explicit failure-handling rule — "If dependency fails, remove or downgrade the downstream claim rather than silently keeping it" — plus a fallback for insufficient input detail. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with five clearly signaled one-level-deep references (e.g., "→ Detailed pattern logic: [references/study-patterns.md](references/study-patterns.md)"), all of which exist in the bundle; however, three bundle files (analysis-modules.md, method-library.md, workflow-step-template.md) are never referenced from SKILL.md, leaving navigation gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |