Content
92%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 strong, executable skill body: the workflow is fully sequenced with real commands, an explicit inspect-and-re-render feedback loop, a verification checklist, and precise template-driven authoring guidance. Bundle files are correctly referenced one level deep and all exist. The only weakness is mild repetition of the output-directory rule, which costs a little token efficiency without harming clarity.
Suggestions
State the output-location rule once (e.g. in the render step) and drop the repetitions in the scratch-dir step, cleanup step, and Overview to save tokens.
Trim the Overview's rationale clause ("this gives precise control over Chinese/English typography, color semantics, and emphasis") since the mechanism is already implied by the pipeline description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and skill-specific — no explanations of what HTML, Chrome, or PNG are, and dense non-obvious guidance ("at most ONE .hl per page", "do not shrink below the template sizes", ≤14 CJK chars per line). However, the output-location rule is repeated three times ("not in the source directory and not littering the project dir", "never the source file's directory", "The source directory is never touched") plus again in the Overview, which is a minor trim-able redundancy. Not a 5 ("every token earns its place") nor a 3 ("some unnecessary explanation"). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste ready commands are given (mktemp scratch dir, cp of poster.css, `render.py --in "$WORK" --out "$PWD"` — the flags match the actual script), exact template paths, concrete CSS class semantics, and fixed pixel sizes. Specific layout options (Points / Paragraph / Big stat) cover the common content cases. Not a 4: there are no minor execution gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A six-step numbered workflow with explicit validation and a feedback loop: step 5 "Inspect every PNG with the Read tool… Fix the HTML in $WORK and re-render until clean", backed by a per-image verification checklist (exact size, clipping, one highlight chip, coherence, source-traceable claims). Cleanup is defined and the deliverable stated. This matches the top anchor (checklist + validate → fix → retry), not the 4 anchor with "minor validation gaps". | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview; bulk material is correctly pushed into the bundle — CSS and page templates in assets/, rendering logic in scripts/render.py — all referenced by exact one-level-deep paths that exist in the bundle, with clear signaling of what each file is for ("assets/template-cover.html → page-1.html"). Inline sections (emphasis rules, copywriting) are core guidance, not reference material that belongs in a separate file. Not a 4: no organization gaps are evident. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |