Content
71%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 lean, well-sequenced pointer card with genuinely concrete operational detail — the broken-asset-URL trap and its two fix recipes are the standout. Its main weaknesses are the missing end-to-end validation step and the fact that every reference it depends on (master skill, template files, shared assets) lives outside this bundle, making the card non-executable in isolation.
Suggestions
Add an explicit final validation step, e.g., "Open index.html and confirm arrow-key/T navigation and animations activate; if styles 404, re-check the four rewritten asset paths".
Include the referenced files in the bundle (master SKILL.md, `templates/full-decks/tech-sharing/`, shared `assets/`) or inline the minimal authoring checklist so the card is self-sufficient when the parent tree is absent.
Trim the duplicated file lists in Recipe A/B (state the four files once, then the two recipes) and the spelled-out consequence of the 404s.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence — no concept tutorials, just operational facts like exact paths, the four asset files, the `<link>`/`<script>` rewrite targets, and "Speaker notes go inside `<aside class=\"notes\">`". It sits at "Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed": the aside "meaning the deck never activates and slide navigation is dead" spells out a consequence Claude could infer, and Recipe A/B path lists repeat the same four filenames twice. Not 5 because of that minor padding; not 3 because nothing explains concepts Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is largely copy-paste ready: exact folders ("design-templates/html-ppt/templates/full-decks/tech-sharing/"), the four concrete asset paths, precise rewrite instructions ("from `../../../assets/...` to `assets/fonts.css`, `assets/base.css`, `assets/animations/animations.css`, `assets/runtime.js`"), and the `T`-key theme cycle. It falls short of 5 because the core authoring rules (content/audience checklist, token rules, presenter mode) are deferred entirely to `../html-ppt/SKILL.md`, which is not part of this bundle — a reader outside that tree cannot execute the full authoring workflow from what is written here. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence (read master skill → copy template → fix asset URLs → pick theme → replace demo content → place speaker notes), and step 3 even pre-empts a failure mode (the 404ing `../../../assets/...` URLs) with two remediation recipes — fitting "Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps". It is not 5 because there is no final validation step (e.g., "open index.html and confirm navigation/runtime activates") to verify the URL rewrite actually succeeded; it is not 3 because the risky step does include an explicit failure-mode checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The card is well-structured as a thin pointer (title, when-picked, six-step authoring, attribution) with clearly signaled one-level references ("[`design-templates/html-ppt/SKILL.md`](../html-ppt/SKILL.md)", the full-decks catalog, the upstream repo). However, none of the referenced paths exist in this bundle — there are no `references/`, `scripts/`, or `assets/` directories and no `../html-ppt` tree — so the promised navigation targets (including the templates and runtime assets the whole workflow depends on) do not resolve. That matches "Some structure but could be better organized": structure and signaling are present, but the split is not actually navigable within this bundle, keeping it below 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |