Content
70%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 exceptionally actionable and its workflows carry explicit validation checkpoints, self-check checklists, and feedback loops that anchor-5 examples aspire to. Its weaknesses are token efficiency — heavy internal repetition makes a 63 KB file larger than the content requires — and three referenced examples/ files that are missing from the bundle, plus a small amount of detail that belongs in the existing references.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the repeated rules: state the "never hand-author behavioral scenarios" rule and the hold-vs-silence tag distinction once (e.g. in Mode and write path and the CA authoring card respectively) and cross-reference them from the other sections; this alone would meaningfully shrink a 63 KB file.
Fix or remove the broken references: create examples/workflow-eval.md, examples/red-team-eval.md, and examples/csv-eval-creation.md, or drop the line citing them, since 3 of the 12 referenced paths in the bundle resolve to nothing.
Move time-sensitive version strings (plugin_version, skill_version) out of the body's prose — or reconcile them with the frontmatter version (0.11.1 vs 0.11.2 currently disagree) — so revision churn doesn't penalize the always-loaded portion of the skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At ~63 KB / 455 lines the body is noticeably verbose: the "never hand-author" rule is restated in at least four sections (Mode and write path, the self-check intro, Batch routing, Gaps after generation), the hold-vs-silence distinction appears three times, and grounding rules are repeated across sections. It also carries time-sensitive version strings inline ("plugin_version=\"0.19\"", "skill_version=\"0.11.1\"" — which even disagrees with the frontmatter's 0.11.2) with no deprecated-section framing. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, so it is above the 'severely verbose' anchor, but the repetition and bulk clearly exceed 'could be tightened'. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete and executable: a complete JSON payload for a CA scenario, exact tag syntax with attribute ranges ("ratio 0.1–2.0", "time is bare milliseconds"), literal step templates ("End the call when <the result of the final scripted action>"), and worked good/bad phrasing pairs. The one deliberate gap — not naming exact MCP tool calls — is explicitly justified ("read their descriptions to pick the call"), and specific commands with exact argument strings are given where they matter ("skill_name=\"cekura-eval-design\"", the verification tag). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step Workflow is clearly sequenced, and validation is explicit and layered: a 6-item self-check before every direct instruction create, a 12-item self-check before every CA write ("Refuse to send a payload that fails any of these"), post-generation reconciliation of counts, and bounded polling with stall/freeze feedback loops (retry once with a smaller batch, then stop and report). Reporting rules ("A write proves storage, not behaviour", separate success from Expected Outcome score) close the loop on error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 9 references/*.md files all exist, are one level deep, and are well signaled both inline at point-of-use and in a dedicated "Reference files (load on demand)" section — but the three examples/ files the body cites (examples/workflow-eval.md, examples/red-team-eval.md, examples/csv-eval-creation.md) do not exist in the bundle, so a quarter of the cited paths are dead. Combined with the large amount of deep detail inlined in the main file (the CA authoring card, the full tag table) that the reference files were created to absorb, this sits between 'minor organization gaps' and the structure problems of the mid anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |