Content
77%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 is a well-organized, largely concise reference with strong numbered workflows and explicit validation steps. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: the SKILL.md signals reference files and a gap-analyzer script that are not present in the bundle, weakening both navigation and actionability.
Suggestions
Add the missing bundle files referenced in the body (references/mdr-classification-guide.md, references/clinical-evidence-requirements.md, references/technical-documentation-templates.md) or remove the dangling references so navigation targets resolve.
Either include scripts/mdr_gap_analyzer.py in the bundle or replace the concrete script invocation with a documented placeholder so the actionability examples are genuinely executable.
Consider moving the larger quick-reference tables (classification matrix, conformity assessment routes, PSUR schedule) into the reference files to keep SKILL.md as a lean overview and improve conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely efficient tables and numbered lists with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, though several quick-reference tables (classification matrix, PSUR schedule, conformity routes) could arguably live in the reference files rather than inline in SKILL.md. Not a 5 because some inline reference-style material could be pushed deeper; not a 3 because what remains is genuinely task-critical and tightly written. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance with real article citations (Art. 86, GSPR 1-3/10.1/17/23) and executable script invocations ('python scripts/mdr_gap_analyzer.py --device "Device Name" --class IIa'). Not a 5 because the referenced script (scripts/mdr_gap_analyzer.py) is not present in the bundle, so the example cannot be copy-paste run as written. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each of the five major processes is a clearly numbered 1-8 sequence with an explicit bolded validation checkpoint (e.g., '**Validation:** Classification confirmed with Notified Body', '**Validation:** Technical file reviewed for completeness'), matching the top anchor for sequenced workflows with explicit validation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good with a dedicated Reference Documentation section pointing one level deep to references/*.md files, but the referenced bundle files (references/mdr-classification-guide.md, clinical-evidence-requirements.md, technical-documentation-templates.md) and scripts/mdr_gap_analyzer.py do not exist in the bundle, so the navigation signals point at missing targets. Not a 4 because the signaled references are not real files; not a 2 because the overall structure and signaling are sound. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |