Content
53%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 well-structured and appropriately scoped to a single file with clear conventions and a sensible pipeline, but it has notable redundancy across sections, leaves the page-write and cross-link steps as vague comments rather than executable guidance, and lacks an in-pipeline validation checkpoint for a mutating batch operation. These place it just above the midpoint of the scale.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step to the pipeline (e.g. after WRITE: re-read the page and check it against the Quality bar checklist before proceeding to CROSS-LINK) to satisfy the batch/destructive-operation feedback-loop requirement.
Replace the comment-only write/cross-link steps with the actual gbrain put_page and back-link command syntax (or a concrete markdown template for the enriched page), so steps 4–6 are executable rather than descriptive.
Deduplicate "What this does" vs. "Quality bar" vs. the pipeline section, drop the inline "v0.25.1" version literal, and trim or remove the Contract/Output Format conformance boilerplate to recover token budget.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes Claude's competence, but "What this does" and "Quality bar" re-enumerate the same six sections, the pipeline and Invocation sections overlap, a time-sensitive version literal ("in v0.25.1") appears inline, and the Contract/Output Format sections are conformance-test boilerplate rather than agent-useful content. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands exist ("gbrain query \"needs_enrichment: true type:article\" --limit 50", "gbrain get media/articles/<slug>"), but the critical write steps are comment-only hints ("Use the put_page operation with the new structured markdown body") with no actual command syntax, leaving the guidance incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step pipeline (READ→SCAN→CONTEXT→ENRICH→WRITE→CROSS-LINK) is clearly sequenced and includes an idempotency check, but this is a mutating batch operation and the pipeline has no validate-after-write checkpoint — the batch-operation cap of 3 applies despite the post-hoc spot-check advice in Model selection. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a single-file skill with well-organized sections and clearly signaled one-level-deep references to conventions/quality.md, _brain-filing-rules.md, and related skills, matching the 'good structure; minor organization gaps' anchor; the placeholder Contract/Output Format sections add slight navigational noise, keeping it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |