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.
The body is a well-structured, efficient reference skill with clear navigation to one-level-deep source files and a sensible verification workflow. Small gains are available by making the verification step an explicit checklist and adding a concrete citation example.
Suggestions
Promote the verification step into an explicit checklist item (e.g., 'Before answering, confirm each claim against transcript.md line IDs') to push workflow_clarity to the top anchor.
Add one short example showing the expected citation/line-ID format so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
Consider trimming or repurposing the 'Core Concepts' list, which overlaps the title and section headings.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and avoids over-explaining bipolar disorder or AI, but the 'Core Concepts' list mildly restates themes already named in the title and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable instruction-only guidance ('Read outline.md first', 'verify against transcript.md', 'cite the transcript line IDs', 'Mark anything beyond the talk as your own recommendation'), with minor gaps such as no example citation or line-ID format. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Grounding rules give a clear locate-excerpt-verify-attribute sequence with a verification checkpoint and an unsupported-claim guard, but verification is conditional ('when precision matters') rather than an explicit checklist step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to outline.md, quote.md, and transcript.md are well-signaled, one level deep, and each given a clear purpose (locate / excerpt / verify); sections are cleanly organized and easy to navigate. No bundle files were provided, so this is scored on the written reference structure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |