Content
67%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.
The body is a well-structured, highly actionable workflow document with concrete tool calls, fallback chains, and error handling. Its main weaknesses are redundant restatements of the quality hierarchy and the RefSeq/ENA rule, and the absence of an explicit validation feedback loop in the workflow.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the quality-hierarchy and RefSeq-vs-ENA guidance: state each rule once (e.g., in the Curation Level Tiers table and the fallback table) and delete the repeated versions in Domain Reasoning and Reasoning Framework.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow (e.g., after Phase 2: verify the returned accession/organism/strain matches the request before reporting, and on mismatch retry with broadened keywords).
Move the Tool Reference and Search Parameters Reference sections into a references/ file (or trim them to the essential signatures) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient (terse tables, checklists, code) but repeats itself: the RefSeq-vs-GenBank quality hierarchy appears in "Domain Reasoning", the "Curation Level Tiers" table, and "Reasoning Framework", and the "RefSeq = NCBI-only / ENA returns 404" rule is stated in the CRITICAL note, the fallback table, the accession guidance, and the Tool Reference. More than minor trimming is needed, but there is no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, near-executable guidance throughout: real tool signatures ("tu.tools.NCBI_search_nucleotide(operation=\"search\", organism=..., gene=...)"), a full parameter reference, fallback chains, and an error-response table. Not 5 because the snippets use placeholder variables ("accession=accession") rather than copy-paste-ready invocations covering common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0–3 are clearly sequenced with an identity checklist and an error-handling table that maps failures to responses. Not 5 because there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop; recovery guidance is tabular rather than procedural. Not 3 since most checkpoints are present (no destructive/batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-file skill with well-organized, clearly headed sections (Workflow, Phases, Error Handling, Tool Reference) and no nested or buried references. Not 5 because at ~150 lines with no bundle files, reference material like the Search Parameters Reference and Tool Reference is inlined in the main file rather than split out; not 3 since structure and navigation are genuinely good. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |