Content
80%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 concise, well-organized QC skill body that earns its tokens and is cleanly structured, but it lacks an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints and an error-recovery feedback loop, which caps its workflow clarity for a verification gate.
Suggestions
Number the checks into an explicit sequence (e.g. 1. inputs exist → 2. dimensions match → 3. product/brand/text checks → 4. write verification.md) so the workflow order is unambiguous.
Add a validation/feedback loop: on a failed check, specify how to record the failure, whether to retry or block, and when to escalate to 'needs human review'.
Spell out the verification.md record format (fields/columns for pass/fail/needs-human) so the output contract is concrete and repeatable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body with no padding; assumes Claude's competence and never explains what an image or QC is, so every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Checks are concrete and specific (shape, colour, label, logo, palette source, style_source branches), giving actionable QC guidance, though framed as descriptive checks rather than copy-paste-ready commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Verification checks are listed but not sequenced into a numbered workflow with explicit validation checkpoints or a fix→re-validate feedback loop, which the rubric requires for a QC/batch skill. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple, well-organized skill under 50 lines with no bundle files; the single-level 'Checks' structure is appropriately self-contained and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |