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 concise, well-structured workflow with clear sequencing and a verification checkpoint, appropriate for a simple skill with no bundle dependencies. Its main weakness is actionability: it describes what to document and verify but not how to actually execute a DiffDock run.
Suggestions
Add a concrete, copy-paste-ready DiffDock invocation command (with key flags and an example input) so the workflow is executable rather than purely descriptive.
Specify an error-recovery feedback loop after the step-2 verification gate (e.g., if the execution path/dependency check fails, resolve the missing dependency and re-verify before proceeding).
Include a brief 'Outputs' or artifact-naming convention so 'Feynman artifacts' map to concrete file paths the user can expect.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no concept padding; every line is task guidance and assumes Claude's competence, with only a brief one-line scope restatement that earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Specific about WHAT to capture and preserve (PDB/mmCIF, SDF/SMILES, confidence scores, Feynman artifacts) but provides no executable DiffDock command or concrete HOW to run the docking, leaving key execution details missing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence with an explicit verification gate in step 2 and result comparison in step 5, but lacks an error-recovery feedback loop (what to do if verification fails), which the top anchor requires. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections (title, scope, numbered workflow, closing principle), satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |