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 concise, well-structured, and navigable with clear one-level references and a concrete output contract. Its only weakness is the absence of an explicit render-validation step and a lack of any copy-paste-ready HTML example beyond the artifact wrapper.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned ('At a glance', 'Best for', 'Avoid for', 'Workflow', 'Output contract', 'Source & license') with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete steps ('Clone `example.html`', 'Replace placeholder content', 'duplicate an existing slide') and an exact `<artifact>` output contract are given, but as an instruction-only skill it offers no copy-paste-ready HTML example beyond an empty `<html>...</html>` wrapper, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six numbered workflow steps are clearly sequenced for a non-destructive template-fill task, but there is no explicit validation/verification checkpoint (e.g. open the deck to confirm it renders) — a minor gap rather than the missing-validation cap case. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle directories exist; the body references only one-level-deep, clearly signaled files (`./LICENSE`, `template.json`, `example.html`) plus the upstream URL, and is organized into clean navigable sections — matching the simple-skill exception for well-organized content. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |