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 delivers a well-sequenced, heavily templated audit pipeline with mandatory validation gates and a real, complete reference bundle. Its weaknesses are a phantom Step 9 (the promised improvement procedure is undefined), an unwired script dependency, and ~75 lines of duplicated schema summary plus changelog that inflate the token budget without aiding execution.
Suggestions
Resolve the 'Step 9 always runs' reference: either add an explicit Step 9 defining the procedure that produces the polished, production-ready SKILL.md (which the description promises), or delete the sentence and the improvement promise.
Wire 'scripts/evaluate_skill.py' into the workflow: give the exact invocation command (e.g., 'python scripts/evaluate_skill.py <skill_path>') in Steps 1–3 where the script's docstring says it applies, or remove it from Dependencies.
Move the JSON top-level nodes table and pre-emit checklist digest out of SKILL.md into references/report_json_schema.md (keeping only the pointer and the drift-warning), and drop or relocate the Changelog section — this trims ~75 lines that duplicate or don't serve execution.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient operational content (templates, formulas, path rules), but there is unnecessary material: a full 'Changelog' section with multi-paragraph rationale about past audits that is irrelevant to executing the pipeline, and ~60 lines of JSON key rules and a pre-emit checklist that duplicate the canonical references/report_json_schema.md even while the body itself says 'the schema file is canonical'. This fits the anchor 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not a 4 because the duplication and changelog are more than minor trims, and not a 2 because the bulk of the body is instruction-bearing rather than padded concept explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The body is highly executable: exact output templates for every step, exact scoring formulas ('Final Score = (Static Score × 0.4) + (Execution Avg × 0.6)'), concrete file paths and fallback rules ('fall back to /tmp/eval_viewer_<skill_name>.md'), and a bash invocation pattern. It is not a 5 due to real gaps: the body asserts 'Step 9 always runs' but no Step 9 is defined anywhere (the promised 'polished, production-ready SKILL.md' improvement output has no procedure), and 'scripts/evaluate_skill.py' is listed as a dependency without a single instruction to run it. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step pipeline is clearly sequenced with strong explicit checkpoints: two mandatory hard gates ('Any FAIL = immediate rejection. Do not proceed to Step 2'), a pre-emit checklist with cardinality constraints ('Each input's assertions array has 3–5 entries — count it'), and overwrite/fallback rules. Not a 5 because coherence is broken in places: the phantom 'Step 9 always runs' reference, the unwired evaluate_skill.py dependency, and the Input Validation scope-gate placed at the end of the document instead of before Step 1. Not a 3 because validation checkpoints are abundant and explicit throughout. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: all 11 files in the Reference Files table exist in references/, links are one level deep and signaled at point of use ('→ Full criteria: references/basic_veto.md'), and a summary table maps each file to its step and gate status. Not a 5 because the body inlines a detailed digest of report_json_schema.md (the 'JSON top-level nodes' table and pre-emit checklist) that belongs in that reference file — content that should be separate is kept inline, matching 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |