Content
81%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: the phased workflow has explicit checkpoints and error-recovery loops, and tool usage is concrete. The main weaknesses are redundant restatements of the RefSeq/GenBank hierarchy and placeholder-variable code samples, plus reference tables that belong in separate files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the RefSeq-vs-GenBank quality hierarchy into one authoritative location (e.g., the Curation Level Tiers table) and reference it from Domain Reasoning and the Reasoning Framework instead of restating it three times; do the same for the 'ENA lacks RefSeq' rule.
Make the Phase 2 code sample fully copy-paste ready by binding the placeholder variables (e.g., showing one concrete call such as organism="Escherichia coli", gene="lacZ") and demonstrating how to parse the returned accession/sequence fields.
Move the Search Parameters Reference and Curation Level Tiers tables into a reference file (e.g., references/accessions.md) and link to it from the body, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and tabular with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the RefSeq-over-GenBank hierarchy is repeated in "Domain Reasoning", the "Curation Level Tiers" table, and "Reasoning Framework", and "ENA doesn't have RefSeq" appears three times (CRITICAL note, fallback table, error table). Not 5 because this redundancy could be consolidated; not 3 because there is no padded or over-explained content. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool calls with real parameter names and values ("tu.tools.NCBI_search_nucleotide(operation=\"search\", ... limit=10)", "format=\"fasta\""), plus fallback chains and an error-response table give mostly executable guidance. Not 5 because the code samples use unbound placeholder variables and only the UID step shows output handling; not 3 because the guidance is genuinely executable, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced Phase 0→3 pipeline with an Identity Checklist as an explicit checkpoint, fallback chains, an Error Handling table providing feedback loops, and Synthesis Questions ("Is the sequence from the expected organism/strain?") that verify results. Not 4 because validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops are all explicitly present; the operations are read-only, so no destructive-op cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-organized with clear section headers, a workflow overview, and no nested or buried references (no bundle files exist). Not 5 because at ~145 lines the "Search Parameters Reference" and "Curation Level Tiers" tables are reference material that could be split into separate files; not 3 because everything present is clearly signaled and navigable. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |