Content
75%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 procedural skill with clear sequencing and a verification checklist, all in one appropriately organized file. The main improvement area is adding validate-and-retry handling for ambiguous findings.
Suggestions
Add a short feedback loop for ambiguous findings (e.g., re-palpate at adjacent positions/depths and re-compare) to strengthen workflow clarity.
Tighten the Overview and Prerequisites to remove content already implied by the description.
Consider moving the detailed position-to-organ mapping and pulse-quality table into a references file to keep the main body leaner.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Efficient tables and bullet lists that assume Claude's baseline knowledge, with only minor redundancy (the Overview restates the description and a few soft prerequisite lines could be trimmed). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout — exact finger placement, position-to-organ mappings, depth meanings, and a quality-to-indication table — though a few steps lack explicit handling for ambiguous findings. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly numbered examination sequence (calibrate, assess, identify, correlate, prognose) with an explicit Verification checklist, but no validate-and-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file with well-organized, clearly signaled sections and no nested references; slightly above the lean simple-skill threshold where some detail (organ mapping table) could be split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |