Content
77%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 core workflow is excellent — a concrete, well-sequenced, validated procedure with highly actionable constraints. Quality is dragged down by the appended skill-author meta-commentary, which pads the token budget, inlines content that belongs in a separate file, and contains a dangling out-of-bundle reference.
Suggestions
Remove the "For skill authors reading this as a reference" section (or move it to a separate authoring document) — it serves readers evaluating the skill, not the agent executing it, and accounts for the bulk of the wasted tokens in the body.
Fix or delete the reference to ../../docs/skills-protocol.md, which does not exist in this bundle; a dangling link undermines navigation and progressive disclosure.
Tighten the self-check step by replacing the vague "The page looks good at 1440w, 768w, and 375w (mentally simulate)" with concrete acceptance criteria per breakpoint (e.g., no horizontal scroll, hero CTA above the fold) so the checklist is verifiable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow itself (sections 1–6) is lean and imperative, but roughly a quarter of the body — "For skill authors reading this as a reference" with its structure tree, od: front-matter commentary, and data-od-id wiring rationale — is author-facing explanation irrelevant to the executing agent, which is more than the score-4 anchor's 'minor instances that could be trimmed'. It sits above score 2 because the core instructions assume Claude's competence without over-explaining known concepts. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete for a generation task: exact section order with element counts, "Use the hero_density parameter as vertical padding in px", "All CSS inlined in a <style> block in <head>", "data-od-id=\"<unique-slug>\"", and semantic tag names. Per the instruction-skill scoring note, the absence of code is not penalized because every instruction is directly executable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence (read context → plan → apply → write → self-check → done) with an explicit pre-finish validation checklist and an error-recovery guard ("If missing, stop and ask for one"). This matches the top anchor's explicit validation steps and error handling; the operation is not destructive or batch, so no cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with headers, but the trailing author-facing meta section is content that belongs in a separate document inlined into the skill, and its link "[../../docs/skills-protocol.md]" does not resolve to any file in this bundle (no docs/ directory exists). This fits the score-3 anchor ('content that should be separate is inline'; reference present but broken) better than score 4's 'minor organization gaps'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |