Content
61%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-organized, checklist-style guidelines skill with concrete do's/don'ts, vocabulary substitutions, and contrasting examples. Its weaknesses are the absence of any apply-and-verify workflow for checking copy against the rules, and a footer full of time-sensitive metadata (date, version, model list) that adds tokens without operational value.
Suggestions
Add a short application workflow, e.g., 1) draft the copy, 2) check it against the Do's/Don'ts lists, 3) scan for Avoid Terms and substitute Preferred Terms, 4) re-verify before delivering.
Remove or relocate the time-sensitive footer (Last Updated date, Claude Code Version, Compatible Models list) — version numbers and dates go stale and add token cost without guiding behavior.
Tighten the Brand Identity section (mission/values) or trim redundant rules to reduce body length toward the lean single-file ideal.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean checklists ('Keep sentences under 20 words', 'Use active voice: ...') with no conceptual over-explanation. However, the footer embeds time-sensitive information outside any deprecated/old-patterns section — '**Last Updated**: August 4, 2026', '**Claude Code Version**: 2.1.220', and a 'Compatible Models' list — which the guidelines explicitly penalize. This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary content that could be tightened') rather than anchor 4's only-minor trimmable excess. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | As an instruction-only skill, the guidance is concrete: explicit do's and don'ts, term substitutions with preferred/avoid pairs ('Use "use" not "utilize"', 'Agent (not "bot")'), and a good/bad example pair with explanations of why each works. It matches anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'), falling short of anchor 5 only because the examples cover a single case and no application procedure is given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill presents reference rules but never sequences how to apply them — there is no step for evaluating draft copy against the do's/don'ts, checking vocabulary substitutions, or verifying the final output, i.e., no validation checkpoint. This fits anchor 3 ('sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' — here the single task is discernible but unvalidated) and the skill is neither destructive nor batch, so no hard cap applies; it cannot reach 5 because the single action is not made unambiguous by any apply/verify step. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is appropriately contained in one file (no external references needed, and none are referenced), organized under clear headers (Brand Identity, Tone of Voice, Writing Guidelines, Vocabulary, Examples). This lands at anchor 4 ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'): the body is slightly long for a single file and the trailing metadata block clutters otherwise clean navigation, keeping it below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |