Content
88%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 tight, well-sequenced skill body that assumes Claude's competence and enforces an approval gate plus verification on a destructive operation. Instructional rather than code-based, which fits the task and keeps actionability just shy of the top anchor.
Suggestions
Consider adding a single concrete tool/command example (e.g., the exact add-in call or a one-line chat regeneration snippet) to push actionability to a 5.
If any environment-specific detail (add-in vs chat edit mechanics) grows, split it into a referenced file to formalize progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean prose that assumes competence and never explains what a deck/chart/EBITDA is; every line carries instruction (e.g., 'the deck is the source of truth for formatting; you're only changing values'). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance with real worked examples (the change-list and report blocks) and exact rules, but it is instructional rather than copy-paste executable code—appropriate for this skill, with minor gaps in literal commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A four-phase sequence with an explicit approval gate (Phase 3) before any destructive edit, plus post-edit visual-verification checks and flagged second-order items—validation and feedback loops are present and emphasized. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a clear overview and no nested references; the skill is self-contained with no bundle files, so structure is good though there is nothing to disclose progressively beyond the single file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |