Content
63%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 concrete code, clear workflow sequencing, and useful validation artifacts (evidence grading, feasibility score). Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: every referenced reference file is missing from the bundle, breaking the navigation promise and leaving duplicated content inline.
Suggestions
Ship the six referenced bundle files (REPORT_TEMPLATE.md, STUDY_DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md, WORKFLOW_DETAILS.md, BEST_PRACTICES.md, EXAMPLES.md, QUICK_START.md) under references/ so the well-signaled progressive-disclosure structure actually resolves.
De-duplicate the inline 14-section outline and per-path tool lists against REPORT_TEMPLATE.md and STUDY_DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md so SKILL.md stays a lean overview rather than restating the reference content.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the 6-path workflow (e.g. 'confirm each path returned data before compiling the report; if a path returns empty, re-query with broader terms') to close the workflow-clarity feedback-loop gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and information-dense, but the inline 14-section report outline and full per-path tool lists duplicate content promised to reference files, and some conceptual framing of endpoint/comparator tradeoffs could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable Python (Quick Start, ClinicalTrials.gov v2 pagination, OpenFDA query) plus specific tool lists and concrete grading/score tables; the main gap is that per-path detailed steps are delegated to STUDY_DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md, which is not present in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence — four reasoning questions first, then six parallel research paths, then mandatory report-first compilation — with feasibility-score interpretation and evidence grading as checkpoints; lacks an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are well-signaled and one level deep with a Reference Files table, but none of the six referenced files (REPORT_TEMPLATE.md, STUDY_DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md, WORKFLOW_DETAILS.md, BEST_PRACTICES.md, EXAMPLES.md, QUICK_START.md) exist in the bundle, and inline content overlaps the promised split. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |