Content
75%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, actionable guide for a template-based deck skill: clear workflow, concrete preservation rules, and an exact output contract. The main weaknesses are the absence of an explicit validation/critic pass in the workflow and references to bundle files that are not verifiable in the provided structure.
Suggestions
Add an explicit final validation step to the workflow (e.g. 'Re-read the finished deck and verify every placeholder was replaced and page-number labels are sequential').
Verify that referenced bundle files (`example.html`, `template.json`, `LICENSE`, `assets/deck-stage.js`) actually ship alongside SKILL.md — several are referenced but not present in the bundle.
Tighten the Source & license paragraph to the essential redistribution requirement; the current two-sentence framing restates what the LICENSE link already conveys.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but the license paragraph ('The full upstream MIT license text — including the original copyright notice — ships in this skill at...') and the 'Best for' prose paragraph have minor trimmable padding. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable steps ('Clone `example.html` into the user's workspace', 'duplicate an existing slide of the most appropriate layout', 'Update page-number labels') plus a copy-paste output contract with exact `<artifact identifier=... type="text/html">` syntax. Minor gaps: no render/verify step, and referenced files (`example.html`, `template.json`) are not present in the bundle listing to verify against. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps (clone → replace placeholders → preserve design system → adjust length → design missing layouts → keep runtime) with small embedded checkpoints like 'Update page-number labels'. No explicit validation pass (e.g. a critic/review pass over the finished deck exists only in the frontmatter's example prompt, not the body), but this is a non-destructive creative task so the validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections (At a glance / Best for / Avoid for / Workflow / Output contract / Source & license) with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references ([`LICENSE`](./LICENSE), `template.json`, conditional `assets/deck-stage.js`). Scored against the actual bundle: none of the referenced files appear in the provided bundle structure, which leaves minor verification gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |