Content
71%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, actionable teardown workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and a concrete scoring rubric. Its main weakness is broken progressive disclosure: the two referenced bundle files do not exist, and substantial detail that should live in them is inlined instead.
Suggestions
Create the referenced files references/data-collection-guide.md and references/analysis-templates.md so the one-level-deep references actually resolve (they are currently missing from the bundle).
Move the full 12-dimension rubric table and the per-source data-collection details (SEO queries, social API examples) into the reference files, keeping only a brief overview plus pointers in SKILL.md to remove the duplication between the body and the intended bundle.
Add explicit error-recovery feedback loops to the validation checkpoints (e.g., 'if fewer than 20 reviews are found, expand the source list and re-collect before proceeding') to raise workflow clarity from a gate to a true validate-fix-retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence (e.g., it never explains what a SWOT or competitor is), with genuinely useful specifics like the iTunes Search API query. Minor over-explanation remains: the inline 'Data Collection Guide' summaries and abbreviated templates duplicate content the skill itself says lives in reference files. Not 5 due to that duplication; not 3 because the bulk earns its tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable guidance — a real copy-paste iTunes API query with parse fields, a 12-dimension rubric with explicit 1/3/5 anchors, and a worked evidence row. Gaps are more than trivial, though: the SEO and Social sections (and the job-postings query) defer to 'references/data-collection-guide.md' for API examples, and that file does not exist. Not 3 because what is inline is genuinely actionable; not 5 because two of five data sources lack any inline executable detail. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six sequenced teardown steps with two explicit validation checkpoints ('confirm you have pricing data, at least 20 reviews, and job posting counts' and 'Every dimension should have a score and at least one supporting evidence note'). Not 5 because there are no validate→fix→retry feedback loops for error recovery, only pass/fail gates; not 3 because checkpoints are explicit rather than missing or implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to 'references/data-collection-guide.md' and 'references/analysis-templates.md' are clearly signaled and one level deep, but neither file exists in the bundle, so the disclosed structure is asserted but not delivered. Additionally, content the skill says belongs in those files (the full rubric table, per-source data details, template markdown) is inlined in the body. Not 4 because the missing files are a real structural defect, not a minor gap; not 2 because structure and signaling are present rather than monolithic or buried. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |