Content
86%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 tightly-scoped, highly actionable instruction skill with concrete numeric specs and a self-check, well-organized into clear sections. The sole gap is the absence of an explicit validation fix→retry loop in the workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after Self-check, e.g. 'If any check fails, revise the offending section and re-verify before emitting the artifact.'
Tighten a few minor phrasings (e.g. 'a real article — at least 600 words' could drop the dash clause) to push conciseness toward a 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (e.g., "long-form is 70% type, 20% image, 10% chrome", "Drop caps only if the DS mood is editorial / serif"), with only minor phrases that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable specs throughout — line length "60–75 chars", "Accent appears at most twice", max-width "680–720px", named `data-od-id` targets, and a copy-paste `<artifact>` output contract covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence ends with an explicit Self-check checklist (hierarchy, line length, accent count, magazine feel), but it lacks an explicit fix→retry feedback loop, so it sits just below the anchor with error-recovery loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A ~50-line skill with well-organized sections (Workflow, Output contract) and no bundle files to disclose; the only external reference (DESIGN.md) is injected rather than nested, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |