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 delivers a clear, well-sequenced evidence workflow with real validation feedback loops and correctly signals its two reference files, both of which exist and go only one level deep. Its main weakness is redundancy: the article outline is duplicated inline and the source order is repeated across three sections, inflating token cost without adding guidance.
Suggestions
Remove the 18-bullet 'The article must include' outline from SKILL.md and rely on references/article-structure.md (keep a 2-3 line summary of the thesis/preconditions logic, which is the body's only unique value there).
State the source order once — in 'Non-Negotiable Source Order' — and have the Evidence Workflow and Validation sections reference it rather than restate it.
Add one short worked example of an evidence-pack entry (claim + source link + uncertainty note) to push actionability from good to fully concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and imperative, but the source order is stated three times ('Non-Negotiable Source Order', the 'Evidence Workflow' steps, and the Validation section) and the 18-bullet article-requirements outline duplicates content already delegated to references/article-structure.md. This fits the level-3 anchor ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than level 4, since the duplication is more than minor trimming. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: named MCP tools ('mcp__deepwiki__read_wiki_structure', 'mcp__deepwiki__ask_question'), a filename convention with an example ('pg-wait-tracer.md'), an explicit output path template, and a copy-paste thesis-logic block. Not a 5 because some directions remain procedural prose without worked examples (e.g., what a completed evidence-pack entry looks like). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The evidence workflow is an explicitly ordered sequence with a failure checkpoint ('If README cannot be fetched, stop and report what was attempted'), a validation gate ('Read references/validation-checklist.md before finalizing... If validation finds weak evidence, revise the article before saving'), and a fallback ('state the gap inside the article instead of inventing support'). This matches the level-5 anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, and feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Both references (references/article-structure.md, references/validation-checklist.md) exist, are clearly signaled, and are one level deep — but the 18-item inline article checklist in SKILL.md substantially duplicates the structure file it points to, i.e., content that belongs in the separate file is inlined. That matches the level-3 anchor ('content that should be separate is inline') rather than level 4's 'minor organization gaps'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |