Content
86%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 concise, well-structured instruction workflow with concrete tool names and a clear output format; its main weakness is slightly thin execution detail rather than any structural problem.
Suggestions
Make the notes file actionable: specify a naming convention and path, e.g. `notes/<topic>-research.md`, so the capture step is copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit verify/retry checkpoint for source claims, e.g. re-check that every source URL was actually fetched before writing the final answer.
Optionally include a one-line example of the expected `notes/` markdown structure to fully cover the common case.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Four lean numbered steps with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Names concrete tools (`web_search`, browser tools), a concrete location (`notes/`), and a concrete output format, but lacks precise execution details like the notes filename or exact invocation, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear ordered sequence (search, capture, verify, format) with a built-in quality gate in step 3 ('Never invent sources... drop it'), though it lacks an explicit re-validation feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short single-file skill (under 50 lines, no external references needed) that is well organized with a clear heading and numbered list, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |