Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A lean, well-organized instruction-only template skill with a clear workflow and concrete guidance, but it is held back by a missing core template file and absent validation checkpoints. Several referenced bundle files do not exist in the shipped bundle, weakening both actionability and progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced `example.html`, `LICENSE`, and `template.json` in the bundle (or note explicitly where `example.html` is obtained) so the clone step and license-redistribution claims are actionable rather than pointing at missing files.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow, e.g. after cloning/emitting: verify `assets/deck-stage.js` loads and keyboard navigation works before finalizing, with a fix-and-retry loop if it 404s.
Provide a concrete starting HTML skeleton (or a pointer to the bundled `example.html`) in the Output contract instead of the placeholder `<html>...</html>` so the deck is copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned ("At a glance", "Workflow", "Output contract") with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. The "Best for" prose is the only mildly evocative spot but conveys real template-selection guidance, so it stays at the top anchor rather than 2. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete dos/don'ts ("Never substitute fonts, recolor the palette... strip decorative elements (corner brackets, paper grain, geometric shapes, illustrated SVGs)") and an output-contract template give specific guidance, but it is incomplete: the central artifact `example.html` is absent from the shipped bundle and the contract shows a placeholder `<html>...</html>` rather than an executable starting point. Not 1 (it instructs, not describes); not 3 (not copy-paste/fully executable). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 1–6 sequence (clone, replace content, preserve design system, adjust length, design missing layouts, keep runtime) is present, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints — only an implicit 404/navigation risk note in step 1. Not 1 (steps are clear and well-sequenced); not 3 (no validate→fix→retry feedback loop). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview is well-organized with clearly-signaled one-level references (inline code + markdown links to `example.html`, `assets/deck-stage.js`, `LICENSE`, `template.json`), but measured against the actual bundle only `assets/deck-stage.js` exists — the other three referenced files are missing, so references do not fully resolve. Not 1 (not monolithic or nested); not 3 because of the unresolved references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |