Content
53%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 delivers genuinely concrete rewriting guidance with strong few-shot examples, but it is padded with four overlapping restatements of the same rules and its output-format instruction is broken and misrendered in its own example. The mismatch with the description (the body instructs summarization rather than style rewriting) further muddies what the skill actually produces.
Suggestions
Collapse the chain-of-thought, task-execution, what-not-to-do, and final-instruction sections into one non-redundant rule list; roughly half the body repeats the same guidance.
Fix the primary example's broken nested code fences and replace the ambiguous four-backticks instruction with a plain, correctly rendered markdown output spec.
Reconcile the body with the description: the body commands summarization ("SUMMARIZE IT FOR MAXIMUM CLARITY") while the description promises style rewriting, so state one unambiguous deliverable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The same rules (short words, active voice, no subjective claims, no jargon) are restated four times across "chain of thought", "task execution instructions", "what not to do", and "final instruction", and the chain-of-thought framing is unnecessary padding. This matches anchor 2 ("Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections") rather than 3, where verbosity would be incidental. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete: specific word substitutions ("Utilize"→"Use"), a concrete preference ("delivery in 24 hours" over "fast delivery"), and three clean few-shot original→summary pairs. It falls short of anchor 5 because the primary example's output is malformed (empty/broken code fences around "Water supply off May 1-13.") and the four-backticks format instruction is ambiguous. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence exists (understand → consolidate → simplify → build → final answer) with an explicit "RE-READ and REVISE" checkpoint, but the output-format specification is broken and demonstrated incorrectly in the skill's own example, leaving the final deliverable ambiguous. This places it at anchor 3 rather than 4, where checkpoints and the sequence would be solidly defined. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file has clear section headers with examples grouped together and needs no external references, matching anchor 4 ("Good structure; most content is appropriately placed... minor organization gaps"). It is not 5 because the redundant overlapping sections and the malformed first example slightly impede navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |