Content
86%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 lean, well-structured instruction-only skill: the three-stage flow is clearly sequenced with concrete per-folder behaviors and thresholds, and there is no wasted token. The two gaps are unnamed templates in the `write(...)` call and an unspecified review checklist for drafts in the review stage.
Suggestions
List the available template names (e.g. the idea, draft, and published templates) in the Templates section so the `write({ document: { path, template: "<name>" } })` call is fully executable without guessing.
Spell out what the review stage should check for a draft in `status: review` (e.g. word-count target vs. frontmatter, target_form fit, grounding rules), so the workflow's checkpoint is explicit rather than implied.
Name the frontmatter fields required at each stage transition (idea → draft promotion, draft → published) so the agent knows exactly what to fill in when promoting or shipping.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line earns its place: folder purposes, concrete thresholds ("idle more than 30 days", "idle more than 14 days"), paths, and frontmatter fields, with zero background explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It matches the lean level-5 anchor; nothing could be trimmed without losing information. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete — "create `drafts/<slug>/research/` on demand", "to revise, copy to a new draft", "auto-fill `canonical_url`", and the executable call `write({ document: { path, template: "<name>" } })`. It falls short of the level-5 anchor because the Templates section never names the available template names, so the agent cannot complete that call without information not present in the skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The ASCII flow diagram sequences the three stages with explicit transition triggers ("↓ commit to writing it", "↓ ship"), per-folder rules, a review status ("status: drafting/review") acting as a checkpoint, and safe immutable handling of published work. It sits at level 4 rather than 5 because what the review stage should actually check is left implicit, and no error-recovery guidance exists — though nothing here is destructive or batch, so no cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines with clear sections (flow diagram, per-folder rules, templates) and no external reference files exist or are needed — the per-rubric guideline for simple skills awards 5 with just well-organized sections, which this has. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |