Content
88%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-engineered multi-phase workflow: verbatim intake scripts, enforced hypothesis-testing checkpoints, tiered source discipline, and a validated deliverable. The body is mostly lean but duplicates its own framing language and partially duplicates reference content inline.
Suggestions
State the non-generic-anchor rationale once (keep it in Q4, where it changes behavior) and cut the duplicate framing section, 'Skip it and the skill becomes a Wikipedia summary' repetition, and the frontmatter-duplicating footer to reclaim tokens.
In Phase 3 and Phase 8, trim the inlined per-type source lists and hook examples to one-line summaries and defer the full matrices to references/subject_type_source_matrix.md and references/conversation_hook_quality.md, keeping the body a true overview.
Drop the bottom References section (or keep only it) — links are already given at each point of use, so listing them twice adds navigation noise.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient — compact tables for error handling, styling, tooling, and anti-patterns; no tutorial-style explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable instances: the non-generic-anchor point is stated twice near-verbatim ("Skip it and the skill produces a Wikipedia summary" in the framing section and "Skip it and the skill becomes a Wikipedia summary" under Q4), the closing footer repeats frontmatter metadata (version, source spec, build pattern), and the References section re-lists links already given inline. Fits the 4 anchor (efficient with minor over-explanation to trim); not 5 because of that duplication, not 3 because padding is the exception rather than the rule. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: verbatim intake question scripts with push-back phrasing, exact retry policy ("wait 3s → retry once → log; after 3 consecutive failures: stop"), executable DOCX validation one-liner (`python3 -c "import zipfile,sys; zipfile.ZipFile(sys.argv[1]).testzip()"`), a real `new ExternalHyperlink({...})` code snippet, exact output filename convention (`dossier_<entity-slug>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.docx`), and a script-invocation table. Matches the 5 anchor for an instruction skill: specific examples cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Ten phases in explicit dependency order (Q1→Q6 with per-question dependencies, stop condition "Never re-open intake after Phase 2 begins"), disambiguation halt-and-re-ask, an enforced ≥30% disconfirming-evidence checkpoint via script, a retry/backoff feedback loop, and output validation (zip integrity + section-presence check) in Phase 10. Matches the 5 anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops for error recovery; no destructive/batch cap applies since the workflow is research-and-generate with a fallback (raw JSON) on failure. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Three references, all real files, one level deep, each linked at its point of use with a one-line description of what it contains, plus a scripts table — good structure. Held at 4 rather than 5 because the ~300-line body inlines substantial detail that also exists in the references (Phase 3 source matrices duplicate references/subject_type_source_matrix.md; the hook table duplicates references/conversation_hook_quality.md), and reference links are repeated in a bottom References section — minor organization gaps per the 4 anchor. Not 3 because references are clearly signaled and content is genuinely split, not monolithic. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |