Content
82%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 content is well-structured, concise, and actionable with a clear workflow and useful guardrails. It could be improved by adding example tool-call payloads and an explicit output-validation checkpoint before writing back project context.
Suggestions
Include one or two example MCP tool invocations with representative arguments to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., verify the synthesized landscape against the query set and guardrails before writing back).
Consider splitting the 12-tool reference into a references/tools.md file to shorten the overview, since the body exceeds 50 lines.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a tool list, sequenced workflow, output template, and guardrails with no general-concept padding; every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It names specific MCP tools with concrete conditions and limits ('Send at most 10 queries per call', 'default to the top 3-5 domains'); the minor gap is the absence of example tool-call payloads with arguments. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step sequence includes checkpoints (research-log reuse before re-spending, confirm inferred competitor shortlist before writing back), but there is no full validate->fix->retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single self-contained file is organized into clear sections (Goal, Required inputs, Project context, Tools, Workflow, Output, Guardrails) with easy navigation, though it exceeds 50 lines so the auto-5 simple-skill exception does not strictly apply. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |