Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-organized, lean decision skill that assumes Claude's knowledge and needs no bundle files. Its weakness is actionability and workflow clarity: some decision branches are incomplete and validation/verification checkpoints are absent.
Suggestions
Resolve the incomplete decision-tree branches (e.g. 'Multiple Treated Units' without a control group, and the implicit 'No control + single unit' path) so every leaf recommends a specific design.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint and a concrete decision-rule example to the Failed Experiment Recovery section (e.g. a worked rule for continue/revise/stop).
Include one short worked example or minimal specification template for a chosen design (e.g. a DiD parallel-trends check list) to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence; it never explains what DiD or ITS are beyond the design surface, and every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete decision tree and named method rules, but several branches are incomplete (e.g. 'Multiple Treated Units' with no control group, or the ITS recommendation) and there are no executable artifacts or worked examples. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The decision framework is clearly sequenced, but there are no explicit validation or verification checkpoints; the recovery section lists steps but lacks decision-rule examples or feedback loops. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Decision Framework, Method Quick Reference, Failed Experiment Recovery) and no need for external references, matching the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |