Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
An actionable, well-structured short skill whose main gaps are mild opening verbosity and the absence of a render-output validation checkpoint.
Suggestions
Add a verification step after render.py (e.g., probe the output with ffprobe to confirm duration ~duration_sec and nonzero video stream) so the workflow has an explicit checkpoint.
Trim the redundant re-description of the fixed/scrolling/mixed signature in the opening paragraph since it already appears in the frontmatter description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and mostly efficient with genuinely non-obvious specifics, but the opening 'signature' restate of fixed/scrolling/mixed repeats the frontmatter and could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides an executable Run command with exact args and output filenames, concrete contract bullets, and a real, explained gotcha (frame-swap because Chromium can't decode H.264 over file://), all pointing to real scripts. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear two-step sequence (build_card then render) is present, but there is no validation/verification checkpoint for the rendered mp4, which caps a render/encode workflow at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Short, well-organized body with sections (Run, Contract) and one-level-deep references to real bundle scripts (build_card.py, render.py, _shared.js) that all exist in ./scripts/. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |