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.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced skill body with explicit validation gates, an error-recovery repairs table, and appropriate delegation of implementation detail to the bundled helper. Its only weaknesses are mild verbosity in the Standards section and inline density that could be offloaded to a reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and task-specific with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every Standards and Repairs line is a real conversion constraint. It matches 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' (the long Standards list and handoff step could be slightly tightened). It is not 5 because the Standards section in particular carries some lines that could be condensed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: the exact bash invocation with paths and flags, a complete JSON upload call including MIME type, concrete validation predicates ('status: "passed"' with zero errors), and runnable local checks (py_compile, jq, test). It matches 'copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step sequence has an explicit upload gate ('Do not upload until preflight_checks.json has status: "passed" with zero errors'), a dedicated validation step comparing uploaded content against the manifest, and a Repairs table that serves as a validate -> fix -> retry feedback loop — matching the top anchor with explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops. It is not 4 because checkpoints are explicit rather than implied. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Implementation detail correctly lives in the real scripts/ bundle (report_to_google_doc_plan.py and the report_to_google_doc package both exist), and SKILL.md stays at workflow altitude with well-organized Workflow / Standards / Repairs / Local Checks sections and one-level-deep referenced paths. It matches 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' — the dense Standards and Repairs sections could arguably move to a reference file, keeping it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |