Content
85%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-structured, actionable skill body with an explicit validation feedback loop and clean one-level-deep references to real bundle files. Minor conciseness trimming and slightly fuller validator-usage detail would push it higher.
Suggestions
Tighten the compression-priority (P0/P1/P2) prose into terser bullet criteria to reduce token weight.
Add a one-line example of the exact stdin payload shape expected by `validate_abstract.py - --json --diff --strict` so the command is copy-paste ready end-to-end.
Consider moving the quote-character hard constraint detail into a short reference snippet so the main body stays lean while remaining authoritative.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and assumes Claude's competence (no explaining what an abstract/library is), with each section earning its place; minor explanatory prose in the compression-priority list could be tightened further. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete executable commands (`validate_abstract.py - --json --diff --strict`, `write_abstracts_md.py <input> --strict`) and an explicit output template with exact counting rules; the stdin input shape for the validator is slightly under-specified. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 3-round limit-handling section is an explicit validate→compress→re-validate→write feedback loop with checkpoints, a round cap, and user-escalation — matching the validate/fix/retry exemplar. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview deferring detail to confirmed one-level-deep references (`references/info_form.md`, `references/title-rules.md`) and scripts, all of which exist, with rules not duplicated inline. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |