Content
47%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.
The body is a lean overview with a well-signaled, real one-level-deep reference — good progressive disclosure. But it offers no workflow of its own, and its single concrete artifact (the Python example) is non-executable fabricated-API code wrapped in quotes rather than a fenced block, leaving the body more descriptive than instructional.
Suggestions
Fix or remove the Python example: fence it as ```python, drop the non-existent 'beta_tool'/'tool_runner' API in favor of the real tool-use API, and add the missing 'import json' — or move it into the detailed guide.
Add a minimal design workflow to the body (e.g. 1. draft the schema, 2. write tool/parameter descriptions, 3. add enum constraints and error returns, 4. validate against the checklist in the guide) so the skill instructs even before the reference is loaded.
De-duplicate the intro (it repeats the description verbatim) and collapse the 12 'User mentions or implies:' bullets into a single trigger line.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The intro duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim ('Tools are how AI agents interact with the world. A well-designed tool is the difference between...') and 'When to Use' pads 12 near-identical one-line bullets ('User mentions or implies: X') that could be a single line. The 'Key insight' paragraph does earn its place, so this is 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' rather than score 2's 'several padded sections'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The 'Python Example' looks concrete but is not executable: it is wrapped in triple quotes instead of a fenced code block, uses a non-existent API surface ('from anthropic import beta_tool', 'client.beta.messages.tool_runner'), and omits 'import json'. The body otherwise delegates all guidance to the reference file, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | No steps are enumerated in the body — the only sequence is the implied 'read the detailed guide, then apply it', with no checkpoints or validation guidance for the design work itself. This fits 'rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined'; it cannot score 3 because no steps are actually listed, and the destructive/batch cap does not apply since this is not such a skill. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is exactly one reference (references/detailed-guide.md, verified to exist, 650 lines, well-sectioned), clearly signaled ('Read the detailed guide before executing this skill... It retains the complete procedure') and only one level deep. Minor gaps keep it from 5: the 40-line inlined Python example arguably belongs in the guide, and 'load the relevant sections' does not enumerate which sections the guide contains. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |