Content
93%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 tight, highly actionable read-only review skill with explicit labels, a copy-paste output template, and a quality-check checklist. The only gap is the absence of an explicit error-recovery feedback loop, which matters little given the read-only, no-external-action design.
Suggestions
Optionally add a brief "If inputs conflict or are missing" sub-step under the workflow showing the retry path (re-request the missing input rather than reconstructing it) to close the feedback-loop gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient: purpose, required inputs, an 8-step workflow, an output template, guardrails, a quality check, and an example invocation, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Despite being instruction-only, the guidance is concrete and executable: numbered steps with explicit labels ("Missing", "Descriptive arithmetic", "INCONCLUSIVE", "Supplied confounders", "Unmeasured possibilities"), a copy-paste-ready output template, and a concrete example invocation grounding the common case. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An 8-step sequence with an explicit Quality-check checklist and an INCONCLUSIVE decision gate gives clear checkpoints; not a 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (validate -> fix -> retry), though that is less critical for a read-only review. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the skill is a single well-organized SKILL.md with clearly labeled sections (Purpose, Required inputs, Workflow, Output format, Guardrails, Quality check, Example invocation) that is easy to navigate and appropriately self-contained. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |