Content
75%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 instruction-only skill with a concrete, sequenced analysis workflow and a detailed output specification. Its main gaps are minor: no worked example of the final deliverable, no explicit verification step, and light padding in the Purpose and persona lines.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with terse bullets and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the Purpose section duplicates the frontmatter description and the 'You are an expert user researcher' persona line is light padding that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout: 'at least 3 distinct user segments', 'sentiment scores (-1 to +1)', '2-3 highest-impact improvements per segment', and a full output template. It falls short of 5 only because no worked example of a finished segment profile is provided. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six numbered, named phases (Data Ingestion → Segment Identification → Thematic Analysis → Sentiment Scoring → Impact Assessment → Synthesis) give an explicit sequence, with implicit checkpoints like 'Flag segments with small sample sizes' and 'Ground all findings in actual user feedback'. No explicit verification step for findings keeps it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-sectioned file with clear headers and a clearly signaled 'Further Reading' section; no bundle files exist to reference. The ~78-line body exceeds the short-skill threshold where a single file alone scores 5, and the ~35-line output template could be split into a reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |