Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly actionable and token-efficient with excellent executable examples, but it fails to leverage the provided references/ bundle and lacks explicit validation checkpoints in the polling workflow.
Suggestions
Link to the existing references/ files (e.g., advanced-parameters.md, prompt-engineering.md, batch-generation.md, errors.md) from a section so detail lives one level deep instead of inline.
Add an explicit validation/feedback step in the polling loop (e.g., retry on transient failure, check HTTP status before parsing) to support error recovery.
Move the prompt-engineering tips and cost/error tables into references and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview pointing to them.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: a parameter table, executable code blocks, and compact reference tables with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides complete, executable Python examples (auth via JWT, POST, polling) plus concrete parameter values and an error-handling table that are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The polling loop shows create-then-poll sequencing with succeed/failed branches, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint before acting on results and no retry feedback loop, which the rubric expects for risky/batch operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a monolithic wall covering parameters, examples, camera control, audio, tips, cost, and errors inline, while six references/ files exist but are never linked or signaled from the body. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |