Content
65%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-organized, token-efficient reference overview that assumes Claude's competence. Its weakness is actionability and workflow clarity: guidance stays at the framework level without concrete examples, templates, or quality checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add concrete examples such as sample interview questions or a survey-item template to make the guidance directly executable.
Surface an explicit end-to-end research workflow (plan -> recruit -> conduct -> synthesize -> report) with quality checkpoints like data saturation or member-checking.
Optionally link one-level-deep reference files for detailed artifacts (e.g., an interview-guide template) to deepen actionability without bloating SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — tables and short bullet lists with no preamble explaining what user research is — though the opening line restates the description and a few items could be trimmed further. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives structured guidance (timed interview sections, named frameworks, a deliverables list) but lacks concrete artifacts like sample interview questions, survey item types, or synthesis templates that would make it directly executable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The interview guide is a clear sequenced 5-step flow, but the overall research process (plan, conduct, synthesize) is only implied and lacks validation/quality checkpoints such as confirming饱和度 or reviewing findings. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, and it is organized into clearly labeled sections, matching the simple-skill exception for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |