Content
72%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 terse, well-structured workflow that respects token budget and organizes a simple skill cleanly. Its weakness is actionability and workflow rigor: it omits the actual model command/API and lacks an error-recovery feedback loop for what is fundamentally a batch screening operation.
Suggestions
Add the concrete SolubleMPNN invocation command or API call (with key flags) so the workflow is executable rather than only descriptive.
Add a validate→fix→retry feedback loop after generation/filtering, e.g. re-screen or re-run when candidates fail the hydrophobic-patch or liability filters.
Specify how to verify model availability in step 2 (e.g. expected path or version check) so the checkpoint is concrete rather than abstract.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean ~12-line workflow with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives a concrete checklist of items to record, save, and filter, but never provides the actual SolubleMPNN invocation command or API, leaving the key execution detail unspecified — matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five steps are clearly sequenced with a pre-run verify checkpoint (step 2), but screening many candidates is a batch operation with no validate→fix→retry feedback loop, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the feedback-loops guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references, and the content is clear and well-organized — the simple-skill exception lets progressive disclosure score 5 on well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |