Content
63%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 has a strong, actionable core — concrete field-count thresholds, a runnable analyzer command, and a consistent audit output structure — supported by a clear workflow and self-check standard. Its weaknesses are a padded, generic Experiment Ideas section and progressive-disclosure defects: the referenced playbook and script files are missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Move the bulk of the 'Experiment Ideas' enumeration into references/form-experiments.md and keep only a short pointer in SKILL.md, reducing tokens spent on generic CRO knowledge Claude already has.
Either add the missing references/form-cro-playbook.md and scripts/form_field_analyzer.py to the bundle or remove the references to them, so signaled navigation does not lead to nonexistent files.
Tighten the Core Principles and Experiment sections by cutting explanatory phrasing (e.g., 'every added field costs conversions') to prescriptive rules, improving conciseness without losing the actionable thresholds.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The Core Principles, Tools, and Output Format sections are efficient, but the large 'Experiment Ideas' section is a padded enumeration of generic CRO test ideas (layout, microcopy, trust elements, mobile) that Claude largely already knows, so it matches 'mostly efficient but includes unnecessary content that could be tightened' rather than the lean anchor above. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete thresholds (3-5 field ceiling, 7+ required = high-priority), a runnable command (`python3 scripts/form_field_analyzer.py forms.json`), and a structured Issue/Impact/Fix/Priority output template, which is mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps from the abstract experiment list. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a clear sequence (Initial Assessment → run analyzer whose flags seed the Form Audit → Recommended Form Design → Test Hypotheses) plus a 'Communication' quality-standard self-check, giving most checkpoints present with only minor implicit-validation gaps; the destructive-operation cap does not apply since this is advisory, not batch/destructive. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are signaled one-level-deep (references/form-cro-playbook.md, scripts/form_field_analyzer.py), but those bundle files do not actually exist in the repository, and the large Experiment Ideas block is inlined content that arguably belongs in a separate reference, matching 'some structure, content that should be separate is inline' rather than the well-split anchor above. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |