Content
78%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, actionable QC skill body with clear workflow, an executable helper script, and properly separated references one level deep. The main gaps are minor editorial verbosity and slightly abstract guidance on the visual-verification step and chat-mode extraction.
Suggestions
Tighten the conversational asides (e.g., 'This is the part most likely to catch something a human missed on the fifth read-through', 'This is where decks go wrong quietly — someone edits the chart on slide 7') to pure directive guidance.
Make the visual/formatting QC step more concrete — specify what to check or reference a checklist rather than 'Run standard visual verification checks'.
Clarify the chat-mode extraction path (e.g., how the uploaded .pptx is converted to the slide-marker markdown the script expects), so the entry point is unambiguous in both environments.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean and assumes Claude's intelligence (no padding about what a deck is), but a few stylistic asides — 'This is the part most likely to catch something a human missed on the fifth read-through' and 'This is where decks go wrong quietly' — are editorial color that could be trimmed. Fits the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor rather than the perfectly lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides an executable command ('python scripts/extract_numbers.py /tmp/deck_content.md --check'), a concrete slide-marker input format, and specific verification bullets, but 'Run standard visual verification checks' is abstract and the chat-mode extraction path is unspecified — minor gaps keeping it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (read deck → extract to file → run script → four dimensions → categorized output) with checkpoints (script flags conflicts, severity taxonomy, 'if there aren't any, say so explicitly'). The read-and-report scope avoids the destructive/batch cap, but there is no explicit re-run feedback loop, leaving it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md is a concise overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references ('See `references/ib-terminology.md`', 'Use `references/report-format.md` as the structure') and a script at `scripts/extract_numbers.py`, all verified to exist; content is appropriately split and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |