Content
60%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 well-structured instructional skill with a clear six-step sequence, explicit input/output contracts, and a named framework (Crossing the Chasm). Its weaknesses are redundant restatement of the four criteria across two sections and an under-specified scoring mechanic for actually ranking segments, which limits actionability.
Suggestions
Merge the 'Key Evaluation Criteria' section with the 'How It Works' steps so each criterion is stated once alongside its research method, cutting roughly a third of the body.
Define the scoring mechanic concretely — e.g., score each segment 1-5 on each criterion with suggested weights and a minimum threshold for 'burning pain' — so 'highest combined score' is executable.
Add a short worked example of one evaluated segment (or a scoring template in a references file) to pattern-match the expected output.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient bullet lists without explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the four evaluation criteria are stated twice — once in 'Key Evaluation Criteria' and again across Steps 2-5 of 'How It Works' (e.g., 'Validate burning pain in each segment' restates the Burning Pain criteria) — a noticeable duplication that could be collapsed into one pass. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance names concrete research methods ('Customer interviews and discovery calls', 'ROI calculation (value gained vs cost)') and defines an output format, but the core decision mechanic is underspecified: 'Highest combined score across four criteria' with no scoring scale, weights, or worked example, and no example segment analysis to pattern-match. This sits between the level-2 hint stage and level-4 mostly-executable stage. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are clearly sequenced from listing segments through selection, with research/validation embedded in Step 2 and a validation checkpoint in Tips ('Validate all four criteria with at least 10 customer interviews'). No destructive or batch operations apply, so no cap; it misses level 5 only because there is no explicit feedback loop (e.g., what to do when validation fails or criteria score low). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single well-organized file with clear sections (criteria, steps, input, output, framework, tips) and no bundle files to reference, so there are no buried or nested references. It is not eligible for the under-50-lines simple-skill exemption (~140 lines), and content like the detailed criteria checklists or further-reading list could arguably live in a separate reference file, matching level 4's 'good structure; minor organization gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |