Content
85%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-structured, actionable skill body with a clear validated workflow and good navigation. The main gaps are a slightly trimmable intro and a summary-composition example that stops at pseudocode.
Suggestions
Tighten the opening two paragraphs: keep one sentence on the faithfulness/hallucination rationale and fold the rest into the Workflow, since the Edge cases already restate the anti-hallucination gate.
Make the summary-composition example executable end-to-end — show a small runnable snippet that builds and emits one problem-oriented line with real cite() anchors, rather than leaving it as a comment.
In the Quick start, after the spans dict, add a 2–3 line runnable block producing an actual cited one-liner so a user can copy-paste and see the citation format immediately.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean with executable code and tight bullet sections, but the opening two motivational paragraphs about the hallucination failure mode could be trimmed without losing actionable guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable openmed.deidentify/analyze_text code and a cite() helper, but the actual summary-composition step is left as a comment/pseudocode example rather than runnable code, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints — step 5 rejects/flags uncited sentences, step 6 requires human sign-off, and edge cases add a PHI leakage gate — so validation is present rather than absent. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (See `resolving-clinical-context`, external standards URLs) and no nested references; content is appropriately self-contained with no bundle files needed. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |