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 concise and well-structured with concrete workflows and a clear safety/refusal boundary. The main weakness is progressive disclosure: the body points to bundle files that are not present, breaking the intended navigation path.
Suggestions
Either include the referenced bundle files (outline.md, quote.md, transcript.md) in the skill directory or remove/collapse the Read Order references so navigation resolves.
Add an explicit validation/feedback step (e.g., verify the cited excerpt actually supports the answer, retry if not) to lift workflow clarity toward the top anchor.
Replace placeholder-heavy output templates with one or two fully worked example responses to make the guidance more directly executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; templates and workflow steps are terse and every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance (2-5 sentence answers, numbered workflow steps, explicit refusal handling) but output templates rely on schematic placeholders rather than fully executable, copy-paste-ready artifacts. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced workflows for both factual questions and application, with an explicit coverage-disclosure checkpoint and refusal boundary; lacks an error-recovery feedback loop, capping it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure and one-level-deep reference signaling are good, but the referenced bundle files (outline.md, quote.md, transcript.md) do not actually exist in the skill directory, so the navigation does not resolve. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |