Content
75%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 is a well-organized, mostly lean orchestration guide with concrete tool references and a clearly sequenced workflow. Its main gaps are the absence of exact tool signatures and explicit validation feedback loops, and no progressive split into reference files (not strictly needed here).
Suggestions
Add exact parameter signatures for the key MCP tools (get_ranked_keywords, get_domain_overview) so the workflow steps are copy-paste ready.
Make validation feedback loops explicit for credit-spending steps, e.g. "If research log shows a run <30 days old, reuse it; otherwise run and log it" as a stated check-and-branch.
Consider extracting the per-tool parameter detail into a references/ file and linking it, to keep the workflow steps leaner.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and purposeful — tool list, sequenced workflow, output table, guardrails — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; only minor phrasing could be trimmed, so it sits above the 3 anchor but not at the fully lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool names with specific filters (maxRank, minSearchVolume, excludeBrandTerms, resultTypes) and explicit conditional steps give mostly executable guidance, but exact tool signatures/parameters are not fully specified, leaving minor gaps versus the copy-paste-ready 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 10-step numbered workflow with explicit conditionals (comparing to user, local SEO) and checkpoint-like guards (research-log reuse within 30 days, continue without backlinks if unavailable) is present, though formal validate→fix→retry feedback loops are implicit rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single file is well-organized into distinct sections (Goal, Inputs, Project context, MCP tools, Workflow, Output, Guardrails) with sibling skills clearly named, which is good structure with only minor organization gaps rather than the one-level-deep reference split of a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |