Content
60%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 genuinely actionable, well-sequenced mapping workflow with concrete templates, validation gates, and a complete, verified reference bundle. Its main weakness is redundancy: the dense/thin-vs-gap distinction and the skill's purpose are restated many times across summary sections, hard rules, and "should not" lists, which wastes context without adding guidance.
Suggestions
Collapse "Skill Summary", "Skill Goal", "Core Function", "What This Skill Should Not Do", and the overlapping Hard Rules into one statement of purpose and one non-goals list — the dense/thin-vs-gap rule needs to appear once, not six times.
Replace the inlined A-J section list with the names only and delegate section content requirements fully to references/output-section-guidance.md, which already lists them.
Add a short sample output excerpt (e.g., one stream entry with a density rating and the training-knowledge label) to make the expected format concrete, and state explicitly whether mapping uses live search or training knowledge.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The dense-vs-thin distinction is repeated at least six times (intro list, Core Function, "should not" list, Step 5, Hard Rules 1/3/4, "What This Skill Should Not Do"), and "Skill Summary", "Skill Goal", and "Core Function" all restate the same three-sentence intent. This is noticeably verbose with several padded, redundant sections rather than "some" tightening opportunities. It stays above anchor 1 because nothing explains concepts Claude already knows — the padding is self-repetition, not background education. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: a literal redirect script with [restatement]/[reason] placeholders, an exact mandatory label ("[Based on training knowledge — verify with a current literature search...]"), an exact sentence for multi-topic inputs, and ten named output sections. Not anchor 5 because it lacks a sample evidence-map snippet showing what a stream/density entry should look like, and never states whether live literature search is used or training knowledge only. Not anchor 3 because the quoted templates and enumerated structures go well beyond high-level hints. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced decision-logic steps, each bound to a named reference module, with an input-validation gate (out-of-scope redirect and stop), a completeness checkpoint ("If a relevant output section is produced without using the corresponding reference module, the output should be treated as incomplete"), and a per-step template requiring objective/key question/expected output/caution. Not anchor 5 because the final quality check ("make the user feel that the topic has become legible") is a soft criterion with no verifiable feedback loop. Not anchor 3 because validation checkpoints are explicit and well-placed; no destructive/batch cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All nine referenced bundle files exist under references/, references are one level deep, and each is signaled at point of use in the Reference Module Integration section and again in the relevant workflow step. Not anchor 5 because the body inlines the full A-J output structure and workflow-standard details that duplicate what references/output-section-guidance.md and workflow-step-template.md already carry — content is not cleanly split between overview and detail. Not anchor 3 because the overview-to-reference navigation is clear, complete, and every reference resolves to a real file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |