Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable and well-structured as a self-contained skill, with concrete prompt guidance and clear sectioning. It loses points for a motivational intro that restates the description and for lacking an explicit validation checkpoint in what is a batch drafting workflow.
Suggestions
Trim the motivational intro paragraph ('You want to talk to real users, but finding them... takes hours') — it repeats the value prop already in the description and adds tokens Claude does not need.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow itself, e.g. a Step 4: 'Review each draft and confirm its opening observation maps to real Amplitude data before finalizing,' rather than burying review guidance in the Tips section.
For the batch email-drafting operation, include a verify→fix loop that flags and rewrites any draft whose personalised opening cannot be tied to a specific data point Amplitude returned.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The prompt template, placeholders, setup, and tips are lean and earn their tokens, but the motivational intro ('You want to talk to real users, but... takes hours') restates the value prop already in the description — the 'could be tightened' quality of a 2 rather than the every-token-counts quality of a 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and copy-paste ready: an exact subject line, a specified opening structure with a worked example, branching scheduling logic (Calendly vs. offered slots + meeting link), 45-minute slots with a 15-minute buffer, and explicit rules — complete rather than the pseudocode/missing-details of a 2. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The three steps are clearly numbered and sequenced (not a 1), but this is a batch operation with no explicit validation checkpoint or fix→retry loop inside the workflow — the review and skip-no-email guidance lives in Rules/Tips rather than as an explicit validate step, so it falls under 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the body is a single self-contained file organized into clearly headed sections (Prompt Template, Setup, Placeholders, Tips) with no nested references, which the rubric rewards for skills with no need for external references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |