Content
63%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.
A well-sequenced, genuinely actionable analysis workflow with concrete thresholds, formulas, and a complete output template. It is held back by redundancy (duplicated trigger lists, editorial filler), an unspecified method for computing statistical confidence, and a monolithic single-file structure that inlines ~100 lines of output template rather than splitting it into a reference.
Suggestions
Delete the duplicate "Trigger Phrases" section (or "When to Use") and the "Cost"/"Core principle" editorial paragraphs — they restate what the skill body and description already establish.
Move the Phase 5 output template to references/output-template.md and keep a short summary inline, and specify how to compute statistical confidence (e.g., two-proportion z-test or chi-square, with the formula or a note to compute it from the given sample sizes).
Add a feedback loop for missing data: if funnel data, target CPA/ROAS, or sufficient sample sizes are absent, state explicitly to skip the affected phase and flag the gap in the report rather than filling placeholders.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean tables and templates, but includes unnecessary padding: the editorial "Core principle: Most startup founders check their ad dashboard..." paragraph, a redundant second trigger list ("Trigger Phrases" duplicates "When to Use" almost verbatim), and a filler "Cost" section stating everything is free. Mostly efficient with clear trim targets, matching the 3 anchor; not 4 because there are several, not minor, removable sections. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete quantitative thresholds throughout: "CPA > 3x target", "CTR < 50% of campaign average", "Minimum sample: 100 clicks per variant... 30 conversions per variant for CPA tests", the CAC formula, and the efficiency-index definitions — plus a complete output template. Not 5: the statistical significance section outputs "Confidence level: [X%]" without any method to compute it, and benchmarks like "[Industry avg]" give no sourcing guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Phase 0→5 sequence with an intake checklist, per-phase sub-steps (2A–2D, 4A–4E), and an action-plan checklist with timing tiers. Not 5: checkpoints are mostly present (significance check, scenario risk ratings, monitor-reallocation step) but there is no explicit feedback loop, e.g. returning to intake when data is missing or insufficient for the significance check. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the ~360-line body keeps everything inline, including the ~100-line Phase 5 output template and duplicated trigger lists that belong in a separate reference file. The section structure is good, but content that should be split out is inline with no references at all, matching the 3 anchor; not 4 because the bulk output template is a clear candidate for extraction. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |