Content
85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews 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 instruction-only skill with concrete templates, markers, and dialogues plus a clear sequenced workflow. Its one weakness is conciseness: the core 'don't write it for me' rule is restated several times and some rationale is redundant for Claude.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'don't write it for me' rule: state it once authoritatively in its dedicated section, then have later sections reference it briefly rather than re-explaining the rationale each time.
Trim philosophical framing like 'Building it is half the studying — that's a literal claim, not a throwaway. An outline you didn't build is an outline you won't know on the exam.' down to a single line, since the behavioral rule already conveys the intent.
The 'What this skill does not do' closing section largely repeats the hard-rule section and Confidence discipline; merge the unique points (no exam-coverage guarantee) into the existing sections and drop the rest.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly actionable but padded with repeated reinforcement of the 'don't write it for me' principle (stated in the hard-rule section, Confidence discipline, Step 3, and the closing section) and philosophical framing Claude already grasps ('Building it is half the studying — that's a literal claim, not a throwaway'). Not score 3 because the redundancy could be tightened; not score 1 because the core guidance is efficient and concrete. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready artifacts: exact Socratic questions, concrete gap markers ([GAP — fill from class notes], [NEEDS CASES], [UNCERTAIN], [VERIFY]), three filled-in outline format templates, an exact refusal dialogue, and exact reconciliation prompts. Matches the score-3 anchor of specific, executable examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced workflow (Steps 1-4: Inputs, Structure, Build, Gaps) with explicit guardrails and feedback loops — the refusal dialogue and the rule-contradiction reconciliation serve as validation checkpoints. The operations are not destructive/batch, so the absence of a formal validate-fix-retry loop does not cap the score. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so the skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized sections and clear headers enabling easy navigation, with no nested or multi-level references. Not score 2 because organization is clean and there are no deep-reference or monolithic-wall failures; the length is the only minor drag but the sectioning keeps it navigable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |