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, information-dense skill body with concrete tool parameters, explicit validation gates, and clearly signaled one-level-deep references. It loses points for redundant inline API-key notes, the absence of any inline executable example, and only implied error-recovery loops.
Suggestions
State the NVIDIA_API_KEY requirement once in the 'NVIDIA NIM Requirements' section and remove the repeated parenthetical from each table row to reclaim tokens.
Include one short inline example call (e.g., an NvidiaNIM_rfdiffusion invocation with contigs, input_pdb, and diffusion_steps) so the quick-start is executable without opening a reference file.
Add a brief inline error-recovery loop (e.g., 'if pLDDT < 70 or few sequences pass, regenerate backbones or raise MPNN sampling temperature') and format the Reference Files entries as markdown links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational (parameter tables, a wrong-vs-correct mistakes table, thresholds, checklists) with no explanation of basic concepts, but the note '(requires NVIDIA_API_KEY env var; free key at build.nvidia.com)' is repeated inline in six table rows despite a dedicated 'NVIDIA NIM Requirements' section, which could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete guidance — exact parameter names ('contigs + input_pdb (both required)', 'diffusion_steps (NOT num_steps; default 15)'), the mistakes table, rate limits, and quantified targets ('>= 5 backbones', '>= 8 sequences per backbone') — but no executable code or command examples appear inline; they are all deferred to reference files, so it stops short of copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (Phase 4 pLDDT/pTM comparison, tier thresholds, a completeness checklist gating '>= 3 passing'), but error-recovery feedback loops are only implied — 'fallback chains' is deferred to DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md and no inline guidance says what to do when validation fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure: an overview-level body plus a 'Reference Files' section listing five files with one-line descriptions, one level deep. Minor gaps: the file entries are bolded names rather than links, and no bundle files were present to verify the referenced paths resolve. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |