Content
82%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 skill body with a clear pipeline and explicit refusal-based validation gates. It loses points for some attribution padding in the forcing-question section and for referencing bundle files that do not exist.
Suggestions
Trim the 'Canon:' attributions from the forcing-question library; keep the recommended action and drop the book-chapter citations to save tokens.
Add an explicit output-verification step (e.g. open/validate review.html or check exit code) after the render command to close the workflow-validation gap.
Either ship the referenced `references/` citation files and `scripts/` pipeline scripts in the bundle, or remove the 'See references/ for full citations' pointer to avoid dangling references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean with tight tables and copy-paste commands, but the 'Forcing-question library' section pads each item with 'Recommended:'/'Canon:' attributions that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready three-step bash pipeline with explicit flags and output files covering the common case end-to-end. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The parse → extract → render sequence is clearly numbered, and refusal gates (exit 3/4, <100-line check) act as input validation, but there is no explicit output-verification checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file overview with signaled references, but the body points to a `references/` directory and `scripts/` paths that are not present in the bundle, leaving those citations dangling. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |