Content
75%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, dense skill body with a clearly sequenced four-phase workflow, concrete tool calls, fallback chains, and error-handling guidance. The main gaps are minor: slight redundancy between the Domain Reasoning prose and the quality tables, code fragments with unbound variables rather than runnable examples, no explicit post-retrieval validation checkpoint, and everything inlined with no reference files despite the skill's length.
Suggestions
Merge the 'Domain Reasoning' prose into the Quality Assessment tables — its resolution/pLDDT guidance duplicates the 'Resolution Use Cases' and 'AlphaFold Confidence' sections — or cut it entirely, since the tables already encode the same rules more compactly.
Replace the Phase 1/Phase 2 code fragments that reference unbound variables (name, uniprot_id) with one small self-contained runnable example (e.g. resolving a protein name to a PDB ID and fetching its quality scores), so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint between Phase 2 and Phase 3 — e.g. 'confirm the retrieved entry matches the requested organism and UniProt accession before reporting; if not, fall back to the next candidate' — and consider moving the Tool Reference and detailed quality tables into a one-level-deep references file to keep SKILL.md as an overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and table-driven — quality tiers, resolution use cases, pLDDT bands, fallback chains, and error handling are all compressed into dense tables with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It misses 5 because the 'Domain Reasoning' prose partially duplicates the later Quality Assessment tables ('X-ray <2 A is high-quality for drug design' vs the Resolution Use Cases table), which could be merged. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Phase 2 provides concrete, near-executable tool calls with real arguments (e.g. 'PDBeValidation_get_quality_scores(pdb_id=pdb_id)', 'PDBeSIFTS_get_all_structures(pdb_id=pdb_id, cutoff=2.0)') and a worked PDB ID ('4INS'). It falls short of fully copy-paste-ready because the code fragments use unbound variables (name, uniprot_id, uniprot_id in Phase 1) and no full runnable snippet ties the phases together. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is explicitly sequenced (Phase 0 Clarify → Phase 1 Disambiguate → Phase 2 Retrieve → Phase 3 Report) with clear ask/skip conditions in Phase 0, an identity checklist, fallback chains, and an error-to-response table that functions as recovery guidance. It does not reach 5 because there is no explicit verification checkpoint before reporting (e.g. confirming the retrieved entry matches the requested organism/UniProt). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the ~135-line body is well organized into clearly signaled sections (Workflow, phases, Quality Assessment, Error Handling, Tool Reference) that are easy to navigate. It scores 4 rather than 5 because the skill exceeds the simple-skill threshold and inlines content — the full Tool Reference and Quality Assessment tables — that would naturally live in one-level-deep reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |