Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly concise and immediately actionable, with concrete tool calls and decision tables that a model can execute directly. Its only gap is the absence of an explicit retrieve-and-verify feedback loop in the workflow, which keeps workflow_clarity at 2 for an otherwise strong skill.
Suggestions
Add a lightweight verification checkpoint in Phase 2 (e.g., confirm metadata/quality fields are non-empty and cross-check PDB ID resolution before composing the report), turning it into a retrieve→verify→report feedback loop.
Make the Phase 2 example code parameterized rather than hardcoding pdb_id = "4INS" so the snippet reads as a reusable template instead of a single illustrative call.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, assumes Claude's domain competence, and avoids explaining basic structural-biology concepts; tables and code blocks are tight with every line carrying information. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready tool calls (tu.tools.<fn>(...)) with parameters, a worked PDB example, fallback chains, and explicit quality-tier thresholds a model can apply directly. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-phase sequence is clear and explicitly gated (Phase 0 ask/skip criteria, retrieve-silently instruction), but no explicit verification/feedback loop checks that retrieved data is internally consistent before reporting; reporting-only workflows are low-risk, so it caps at 2 rather than dropping. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single self-contained SKILL.md (~130 lines) with well-organized sections and no external references; under the simple-skills rule, well-organized one-file structure earns 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |