Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced with explicit confirmation checkpoints across all four phases. The main weaknesses are minor verbosity/editorializing and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure into referenced files.
Suggestions
Trim editorial padding such as 'it makes the output analysis 10x more useful' and the parenthetical rationale inside question blocks to improve conciseness.
Split the SHARED CONTEXT template and the conversational question blocks into a referenced file (e.g., references/shared-context.md) to improve progressive disclosure and navigation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete extraction lists, question blocks, and a shared-context template, but includes editorial padding like 'it makes the output analysis 10x more useful' and parenthetical justifications inside questions that could be trimmed, so it is not fully lean. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, executable guidance: a 7-item website-extraction checklist, explicit conversational question blocks, a literal SHARED CONTEXT template, named signal skills with cost figures, and a prioritized routing plan with pre-filled handoff steps. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-phase sequence with explicit validation checkpoints ('present a summary... and ask them to confirm or correct', 'Present your research findings... before proceeding', 'Ask them to confirm, add, or remove items') that act as feedback loops before progressing. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-sectioned but monolithic at ~175 lines with no bundle files or one-level-deep references; inline content such as the shared-context template and question blocks could be split into referenced files for cleaner navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |