Content
82%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 strong, executable scorecard skill: copy-paste code, a sequenced diagnostic workflow, and well-organized sections with one-level-deep references. Its only weaknesses are minor — a few justificatory sentences could be trimmed and an explicit fixture-validation checkpoint before the batch run would sharpen the workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'validate fixtures shape' checkpoint as step 1.5 of the Workflow (check that each item has text + well-formed gold_spans of {start,end,label}) before invoking run_suite, giving the batch eval a clear pass/fail gate.
Trim justificatory asides like 'because clinical entities are multi-token... and token-level accuracy hides boundary errors' to a single clause; the 'Token F1 lies; report span F1' gotcha already makes the point.
If the edge-case matching rules (overlapping/nested spans) grow, consider extracting them into a references/ file referenced one level deep to keep SKILL.md a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's domain competence — it does not explain what NER, seqeval, or F1 are — with a tight table for match modes and executable snippets; a few justificatory sentences (e.g. "because clinical entities are multi-token...") could be trimmed, placing it just below the level-5 'every token earns its place' anchor but above the 3-anchor's 'some unnecessary explanation'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready executable code covers the common cases — run_suite with fixture-shape comments, error_report with example_cap, and direct compute_exact_span_f1 / compute_relaxed_span_f1 calls — matching the level-5 anchor for fully executable, specific examples. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with a diagnostic checkpoint (step 4: read both F1s, interpret the strict/relaxed gap) and triage feedback (steps 5-6), but lacks an explicit validate-fixtures-shape step before running the batch eval, so it sits at the level-4 anchor (clear sequence, minor validation gap) rather than 5; the batch cap at 3 is avoided because read-only evaluation here includes verification via the F1-gap check and error_report. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the body is organized into well-labeled sections (When to use, Match modes, Quick start, Workflow, Hand-off, Edge cases, Standards & references) with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references to external standards and OpenMed source files; it is not a level-5 because a few sections (e.g. edge-case matching rules) could conceivably live in a deeper reference, but it is well above the 3-anchor's buried/inline critique. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |