Content
75%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, terse playbook with genuinely actionable specifics (analyzer command, numeric parameters, ordered audit output format). The main weaknesses are inline reference material that could live in a separate file and some generic best-practice content that adds tokens without adding skill-specific knowledge.
Suggestions
Move reference-style tables (Common Patterns by Product Type, email trigger timings, output artifacts) into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview that links to it.
Trim generic best-practice guidance Claude already knows (empty-state copy rules, email dos, the Communication section's process filler) to free context-window budget.
Add one worked example of the Onboarding Audit output (analyzer result plus one Finding → Impact → Recommendation → Priority entry) so the primary deliverable is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean bullet-and-table formatting with little padding, but several sections restate generic knowledge Claude already has (empty-state copy rules, email best practices, "Deliver recommendations following the output quality standard"). Efficient with minor trimming opportunities, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's "every token earns its place." | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Includes a copy-paste-ready command ("python3 scripts/activation_funnel_analyzer.py funnel.json --json") and concrete parameters throughout ("3-7 items," "24h, 72h" triggers, "Finding → Impact → Recommendation → Priority"). For an instruction-only skill this is mostly executable guidance, but no worked examples or sample copy exist for the common cases, keeping it below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence for the audit path: context pre-check ("If .claude/product-marketing-context.md exists, read it before asking questions"), ordered assessment questions, the analyzer checkpoint ("Run the bundled analyzer on your step counts instead of eyeballing"), and ordered output ("Lead with the analyzer's output... Then, for each issue"). The design path lacks an explicit end-to-end sequence, a minor gap consistent with anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections, and the sole bundle file (scripts/activation_funnel_analyzer.py) is real and clearly invoked. However, all ~250 lines are inline: reference-style tables (Common Patterns by Product Type, email trigger timings) could be split into a references/ file. Good structure with minor organization gaps matches anchor 4, not the clean overview-plus-references split of anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |