Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a reasonably well-structured research skill that provides a clear workflow and useful output template. Its main weaknesses are the lack of explicit validation/feedback loops in the research process and some sections that describe strategies Claude would naturally employ (like asking users for blocked content). The actionability could be improved with more specific tool usage patterns rather than abstract procedural descriptions.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after evidence gathering, e.g., 'Before presenting findings, verify: Do you have ≥2 independent sources per option? Are sources from the last 2 years? If not, iterate.'
Make web search steps more actionable by specifying tool usage patterns (e.g., specific search query formulation strategies or how to use the web search tool with targeted queries)
Remove or condense the 'Handle Blocked Content' section—Claude already knows to ask users for inaccessible content; a single line would suffice
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation. The 'Handle Blocked Content' section explains obvious fallback strategies Claude would know. The example prompts are helpful but slightly verbose. The overall structure is reasonable but could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete bash commands for cloning repos and creating directories, and a clear output format template. However, the core research steps are more procedural guidance than executable instructions—web search steps are described abstractly rather than with specific tool invocations or concrete examples of search queries. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly numbered and sequenced (search → examine → handle blocks → store → verify evidence). However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops—no step says 'verify your findings before proceeding' or provides criteria for when research is sufficient vs. needs more iteration. The evidence requirements section partially addresses this but lacks a clear decision gate. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a skill of this size (~80 lines) with no bundle files, the content is well-organized into logical sections with clear headers. The structure flows naturally from process steps to output format to example usage. No external references are needed for this scope, and the sections are appropriately sized. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |