Content
63%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, domain-rich pipeline guide with concrete tools, parameters, and statistical thresholds, but it is undermined by triple-stated QC thresholds, a duplicated workflow diagram, dangling references to code_examples.md and report_template.md that do not exist in the bundle, and no error-recovery guidance at its validation checkpoints. Tightening the redundancy and shipping (or removing) the referenced files would lift it substantially.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced bundle files: create code_examples.md and report_template.md (or remove the links) — both are dangling since no references/ or sibling files exist in the skill directory, and the body defers real content to them ('See [report_template.md](report_template.md) for full example output').
Deduplicate the QC/workflow content: state the thresholds (min 200 genes, 500 UMI, <20% MT, FDR < 0.05) once and reference them — they currently appear in the workflow diagram, Phase 1 summary, and Quantified Minimums; collapse the ASCII diagram into the Phase Summaries or vice versa.
Add explicit error-recovery loops at the existing checkpoints (Phase 1 QC, alignment verification, Phase 4 FDR filtering): e.g., what to do when fewer than 500 locations survive QC, when spatial alignment fails, or when clustering produces no coherent domains — this would move workflow clarity from good to complete.
Move the inlined HuBMAP API documentation (tool parameter lists, organ code table, and the two example code blocks) into a reference file, keeping only the tool names and one-line 'when to use' notes in SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and information-dense, but with repeated content that could be tightened: QC thresholds (min 200 genes, 500 UMI, <20% MT) appear three times (workflow diagram, Phase 1 summary, Quantified Minimums), the ASCII workflow diagram substantially duplicates the Phase Summaries, and the HuBMAP examples section contains two separate example blocks where one would do. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the noticeably-verbose level 2, since the domain-specific interpretation guidance (Moran's I thresholds, evidence grading) is genuinely additive rather than padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The content is largely executable: concrete tool invocations with named parameters (`HuBMAP_search_samples(organ="LK", sample_category="block", registered_only=True, limit=5)`), runnable Python (`sc.read_visium`, `sc.read_10x_mtx`), specific thresholds (FDR < 0.05, Moran's I > 0.3, z-score > 2), and named methods per phase. Minor gaps — e.g., the GEO download snippet shows the URL but not the actual download/parse step, and the H&E DeepSpotM tool is named without a call example — keep it at 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste-ready coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The eight-phase pipeline is clearly sequenced with most checkpoints present: QC gates in Phase 1, alignment verification, FDR filtering in Phase 4, and marker-gene validation in Phase 6. It falls short of level 5 because feedback loops are implicit — there is no guidance on what to do when a checkpoint fails (e.g., too few spots survive QC, clustering yields no coherent domains, alignment mismatch), which the anchor requires as explicit error-recovery steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is good and reference links are clearly signaled ('See [report_template.md](report_template.md)', 'See [code_examples.md](code_examples.md)'), but no bundle files exist in the skill directory, so both referenced files are dangling links that provide no actual detail. Additionally, substantial content that belongs in reference files is inlined in SKILL.md (the full HuBMAP API documentation with two example blocks, use-case walkthroughs, and interpretation guidance), matching 'some structure but... content that should be separate is inline' rather than the well-split level 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |