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.
A strong, highly actionable body: executable curl and Python for the entire kickoff → poll → download → de-id → NER chain, a numbered workflow with real checkpoints (poll-until-200, Retry-After, leakage-gate verification), and dense, well-signaled gotchas. It loses a little to redundancy between the Workflow, Hand-off, and Edge cases sections and keeps all detail inline rather than splitting some into reference files.
Suggestions
Tighten the overlap between the Workflow, Quick start, and Hand-off sections — e.g. reduce the Workflow to the step names and let the Quick start carry the commands — to trim repeated content.
Promote the de-id verification into an explicit workflow step with a feedback loop (e.g. 'Step 5: verify with openmed.eval leakage gates; if leakage is detected, adjust method/policy and re-run') instead of leaving it as an edge-case note.
Consider moving the Edge cases & gotchas detail (or the full streaming example) into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as a tighter overview with one-level-deep links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence ('NDJSON is one resource per line — stream it; do not load the whole file'), but there is redundancy: the Workflow section restates the Quick start steps and the Hand-off section repeats the de-id-first point already made in the code comment and edge cases. This matches the 4 anchor ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') rather than the fully lean 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste curl commands for kickoff, polling, and download with the exact headers ('Prefer: respond-async', 'Content-Location'), and a complete Python note_text() extractor covering DocumentReference.content[].attachment.data and DiagnosticReport.presentedForm[].data, wired into openmed.deidentify and analyze_text. This matches the 5 anchor ('fully executable; copy-paste ready… covers the common cases'); not 4 because there are no gaps in the common path. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence exists with most checkpoints present: poll until 200, honour Retry-After/X-Progress, check requiresAccessToken, and 'Verify de-id with openmed.eval leakage gates… not F1 alone'. This avoids the missing-validation cap (verification is explicitly present for this batch operation), but the validate → fix → retry loop is described in prose in Edge cases rather than as explicit workflow steps, matching the 4 anchor rather than the 5 anchor's explicit validation steps and feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized with clearly signaled one-level-deep pointers (scaffolding-smart-on-fhir, exporting-to-fhir, evaluating-with-leakage-gates, and the standards URLs). However, the ~145-line body inlines everything — the edge cases and the full streaming code could reasonably live in reference files — matching the 4 anchor ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps') rather than a well-split 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |