Content
90%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.
An exemplary lean, highly actionable skill body: precise data contracts, an exact output artifact spec, and a real validation checklist. The two gaps are the missing error-recovery loop around checklist validation and a resource map that points to a nonexistent example.html, which the frontmatter outputs and the checklist also rely on.
Suggestions
Either ship example.html in the bundle or remove it from the resource map, frontmatter od.outputs.secondary, and the checklist P0 item — a resource map entry with no file is a broken navigation pointer.
Add an explicit feedback loop to the workflow (e.g., "If any P0 checklist item fails, fix the artifact and re-validate before emitting") so validation is a gate with recovery, not a single check.
Add a checkpoint after step 1 (e.g., confirm every DESIGN.md token has a mapped CSS variable before adapting the template) so token-mapping errors surface early.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanation of HTML/charting basics, a one-line mission statement, and every section carries project-specific knowledge Claude cannot infer (chart data contracts, the artifact wrapper, interaction inventory). This matches anchor 5 ("Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place") — e.g., "hourChart (engagements / decimals: 0)" conveys a full data contract in one line. Not a 4 because there is no identifiable passage that could be cut without losing real guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete and executable: named files to read ("Read active DESIGN.md first... adapt assets/template.html"), exact data contracts ("every bars[i].stack must remain a 3-element array", "Keep all four line series the same length (default 7 points)"), and a copy-paste-ready artifact wrapper with required attributes (identifier, type, title). This matches anchor 5; the absence of runnable code is appropriate for a template-adaptation skill and the guidance covers the common cases (per the code_vs_instruction scoring note). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced (read DESIGN.md → adapt template → preserve structure/interactions → validate with references/checklist.md before emitting), and step 6 is an explicit checklist-based validation gate. It stops short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop ("if the checklist fails, fix and re-validate") and no intermediate checkpoint after the token-mapping step — matching anchor 4's "clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps". No destructive/batch-operation cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: a resource-map tree up front, well-organized sections, and a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("Validate with references/checklist.md"), which does exist in the bundle. However, the resource map lists "example.html" at the bundle root and the checklist requires "example.html is complete, hand-built" — but no example.html exists in the bundle (only SKILL.md, assets/template.html, references/checklist.md). This broken pointer is exactly anchor 4's "minor organization gaps"; it is not a 3 because all other structure and referencing is appropriate and navigable. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |