Content
48%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 core workflow (inputs, typed material combinations, seven sequenced steps with word-count constraints, and a real executable script) is genuinely actionable, but it is buried in ~100 lines of generic boilerplate that restate the same validation rules repeatedly. Corrupted examples (stripped terms leaving '()' and '****'), a fabricated --help expected output, and a dangling internal reference further undermine trust in the details.
Suggestions
Remove or merge the generic template sections (When to Use, Key Features, Dependencies, Required Inputs, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist) — they restate the same validation guidance 5+ times and consume roughly half the file; keep only skill-specific versions of each rule.
Repair the corrupted examples: restore the stripped terms in 'soft articles' (), 'planting grass' (), and the outline header example '****' with a concrete form like '**Introduction**'/'**Body**'/'**Conclusion**' that matches the script's parsing regex.
Fix the validation checkpoint: state that 'python scripts/outline_utils.py --help' prints argparse help text (not 'Result file: soft_article_writer_result.md...'), and replace the dated 'cd "20260316/scientific-skills/Others/soft-article-writer"' path with a path relative to the skill's actual install location.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Roughly half the body is generic template boilerplate ('When to Use', 'Key Features', 'Required Inputs', 'Output Contract', 'Validation and Safety Rules', 'Failure Handling', 'Deterministic Output Rules', 'Completion Checklist') that restates validation guidance 5+ times, and 'Key Features' repeats the description verbatim. This is 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary... padded sections' rather than the mostly-efficient anchor 3, though the core workflow section itself is reasonably tight and teaches nothing Claude already knows. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete command 'python scripts/outline_utils.py --text "<generated_outline_text>"' with documented JSON fields, typed inputs, per-section word counts, title constraints, and a final output template exist — but the outline format example is corrupted ('e.g., ****' where the bold-header example was stripped), the 'Expected output format' for the --help validation is fabricated, and the dated cd path is unusable. Concrete guidance with key details missing or wrong fits anchor 3 rather than the minor-gaps anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-7 are clearly sequenced with per-step inputs, constraints, and a final output template, plus a validation shortcut and completion checklist. Not 5 because there is no integrated validate-fix-retry feedback loop and the validation checkpoint's stated expected output is incorrect; not 3 because the sequence and most checkpoints are present and this is not a destructive/batch skill. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Script references ('scripts/outline_utils.py') are real, clearly signaled paths, but the body is split into two competing halves — an auto-generated template preamble and the actual skill doc — with a dangling reference ('See ## Workflow above' when Workflow appears below) and duplicated validation sections. Structure exists but organization is muddled beyond the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |