Content
75%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.
A well-structured, highly actionable body with a clear five-step workflow, real scripts, and one-level-deep references that all exist. The main cost is redundancy: the same skill-boundary and anti-pattern material is repeated across up to three sections, which inflates token usage without adding guidance.
Suggestions
Merge "Do not use for" and "Distinct from" into a single disambiguation section — both list the same six skills with near-identical rationale, roughly halving that content.
Cut the "Confusing this skill with partnerships-architect" anti-pattern (and the forcing-question canon notes that restate listed anti-patterns) since the boundary is already covered in the disambiguation section.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint between steps (e.g., 'confirm the cost-to-serve report flags no double-counting before running the ROI analyzer') to close the workflow-clarity gap and make script-side validation an operator step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most content is genuine domain expertise Claude would not know (per-channel retention differential, MDF-to-pipeline ratios, inconsistent overhead allocation), but there is noticeable redundancy: the six-skill disambiguation appears twice nearly verbatim ("Do not use for" and "Distinct from" sections), the partnerships-architect boundary is stated three times (both of those sections plus the "Confusing this skill with partnerships-architect" anti-pattern), and forcing questions 2 and 3 restate anti-patterns already listed. This fits the level-3 anchor 'could be tightened' better than level 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: exact commands with flags for each step ("scripts/cost_to_serve_calculator.py --input channel.json --output markdown", "--profile {saas,api,enterprise-software,marketplace,hardware}"), a copy-paste quick example using the real `--sample` flag, the input schema delegated to the existing assets/channel_data_template.md, and explicit run order ("Run once per channel"). The level-5 'copy-paste ready commands covering common cases' anchor is met. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five steps are clearly sequenced with a command per step, per-step outputs stated, and data-flow linkage between steps ("The 'true gross margin' line is the input the next two scripts care about"); the forcing-question section adds ordering discipline ("Lock 1-3 before opening 4-7"). It sits at level 4 rather than 5 because there are no explicit verify-before-proceeding checkpoints in the workflow itself — validation (double-counting flags, allocation-consistency checks) is described as script behavior rather than as an operator step with a fix-and-retry loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are one level deep, clearly signaled, and all real (all three scripts exist with the claimed --sample/--profile flags; all three reference files and the template exist). The body appropriately delegates input schemas to assets/channel_data_template.md and canon detail to references/. It is level 4 rather than 5 because the body inlines a full anti-patterns section and per-question canon citations while parallel reference files (channel_anti_patterns.md, the canon files) exist — some of that inlined material overlaps content already split out, leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |