Content
88%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 highly actionable and workflow-clear, with a concrete output contract and strong validation/feedback loops. The main improvement is consolidating the repeated approval-before-edit pattern and considering whether the large output-contract example belongs inline.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated 'ask the developer for approval before editing source' guidance into one stated policy referenced from Hint Rules and Tool Descriptor/CSP Rules to reduce redundancy.
Consider extracting the full JSON output-contract example into a references file (e.g. references/submission-template.json) referenced from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure at this length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, but the 'ask for approval before editing source' pattern is restated across Hint Rules and Tool Descriptor/CSP Rules, which could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a complete, copy-paste-ready JSON output contract plus exact concrete rules (5 positive / 3 negative test cases, the full category enum, explicit hint semantics, CSP flags), giving fully actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An 8-step sequenced workflow with explicit validation (compare annotations against actual behavior) and a clear feedback loop (stop, ask approval, edit-and-regenerate or block) for mismatched hints and source ambiguity. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections and self-contained with no nested references, but at 156 lines all content is inline with no external reference structure, so it sits just below the cleanly-split ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |