Content
78%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 instruction-only skill: an ordered 7-dimension analysis framework with concrete examples, a defined output format, page-type variants, and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure into two real reference files. Weaknesses are minor — slight redundancy between the inline experiment list and its reference file, evaluative-question bullets where executable steps would be stronger, and a task-questions section positioned after the output format.
Suggestions
Move 'Task-Specific Questions' ahead of the CRO Analysis Framework so the workflow reads: gather context → ask unanswered questions → analyze → output.
Add one short worked example of a finished recommendation (e.g., a sample Quick Win with rationale and a copy alternative) to push actionability toward fully executable.
Trim the inline 'Experiment Ideas' bullet list to a one-line pointer to references/experiments.md, since the reference file already covers those categories comprehensively.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean checklist-style framework with no padding of concepts Claude already knows — no explanation of what CRO is or why conversion matters. Minor trimmable redundancy keeps it from level 5: the inline 'Experiment Ideas' list largely duplicates references/experiments.md, and 'Related Skills' re-states routing already in the description's boundary clauses. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concretely executable throughout: weak vs. strong CTA copy ("Weak: 'Submit,' 'Sign Up,' 'Learn More' / Strong: 'Start Free Trial'"), headline patterns ("Get [desired outcome] without [pain point]"), a defined output structure (Quick Wins / High-Impact Changes / Test Ideas / 2-3 Copy Alternatives), and per-page-type frameworks. It falls short of the fully-executable level-5 anchor only in that several bullets remain evaluative questions ("Is there enough white space?") and there is no worked example of a finished recommendation. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present with checkpoints: read .claude/product-marketing.md first and 'only ask for information not already covered', run the Initial Assessment, then analyze the 7 dimensions 'in order of impact', then apply the structured output format. As a non-destructive advisory skill, no validation loop is required. The minor gap: 'Task-Specific Questions' (the questions to ask the user) appears after the Output Format section rather than before the analysis framework, slightly scrambling the natural order. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an appropriate overview and both referenced bundle files exist (references/experiments.md, references/form.md), are one level deep (no nested references), and are clearly signaled at natural points: 'For comprehensive experiment ideas by page type: See [references/experiments.md]' and 'For detailed form CRO guidance... see [references/form.md]'. Per-page frameworks that belong inline stay inline. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |