Content
62%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 genuinely well-structured 5-step workflow with strong validation and concrete templates — its workflow clarity is excellent. But it badly underuses its own progressive-disclosure bundle: roughly two-thirds of the body (principles, templates, examples) duplicates content that already lives in references/, and the repetition of the same checklists and principles across four sections makes it noticeably verbose.
Suggestions
Cut the "Best Practices", "Common Mistakes", and "Quick Reference" sections (they restate Steps 1-5 almost verbatim) and collapse the body to the 5-step workflow plus the quality-dimension scoring table — an estimated 60-70% token reduction with no information loss.
Replace the inlined template catalogs and principle explanations with per-file pointers, e.g. "**Templates**: See [references/prompt-templates.md](references/prompt-templates.md) — workflow, task-operation, analysis, creation, transformation", so each reference file is named and mapped to its topic instead of the generic "see the references/ directory".
Integrate scripts/validate-prompt.py into Step 5's workflow (e.g. "5. Run `python scripts/validate-prompt.py prompt.txt --report` for automated dimension scoring") instead of leaving it as an unconnected closing mention.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body runs ~875 lines and restates the same prompt-engineering principles (clarity, specificity, context, validation) three times over — in the step-by-step workflow, again under "Best Practices", and again under "Common Mistakes" and "Quick Reference" — while a "Quality Checklist" appears near-identically in Steps 2, 5, and the Quick Reference. This matches anchor 2 (noticeably verbose, several padded sections); not 1 because the material is structured and on-topic rather than tutorial-style padding of facts Claude doesn't need, but the redundancy is extensive enough to sit below the midpoint. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, usable artifacts throughout: a fill-in Task Definition Template, a six-part Core Prompt Structure with worked examples, a template selection guide keyed to prompt types, good/bad task definition contrasts, and a real validation script (scripts/validate-prompt.py) — all copy-paste adaptable. It falls short of 5 only in integration gaps: the validation script is mentioned only in a closing one-liner and never wired into Step 5's workflow, and some guidance ("Peer Review: Have someone else read it") is not executable by Claude. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced, each step ends with explicit "→ Output" / "→ Next" transitions, and Step 5 is a full validation loop: five scored quality dimensions with a "all dimensions ≥4" target, testing strategies (dry run, actual test, iteration), and a Common Issues & Fixes table that functions as error-recovery feedback. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, checklists); the skill is not destructive or batch-oriented so no cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle has three well-scoped reference files (prompt-engineering-principles.md, prompt-templates.md, prompt-examples.md) plus a script, all real and one level deep — but the body's only pointer is the generic "see the references/ directory" with no per-file mapping, while hundreds of lines of templates, examples, and principles are inlined in the body that duplicate those reference files (the body's "Prompt Patterns" and "Best Practices" sections restate principles; Step 3's templates restate prompt-templates.md). This matches anchor 3 (references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline); not 4 because the split is poor and navigation to the right reference file is left to guesswork. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |