Content
67%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 a lean, well-structured instruction skill with a clear workflow, a useful threat-to-check mapping table, and a concrete output pattern. Its main defect is that all three linked reference files are missing from the bundle, breaking progressive disclosure, and a minimal runnable check example would strengthen actionability.
Suggestions
Create the three referenced files (reference/counterfactual_analysis.md, reference/threat_catalog.md, reference/falsification_tests.md) or remove the References section so no links are broken.
Add a minimal executable example of running one CausalPy check (e.g. importing cp.checks and applying PreTreatmentPlaceboCheck to a fitted model) so users can go from threat mapping to execution.
Trim or merge the Core Questions section, which largely restates workflow steps 1-3, to tighten token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the Core Questions section partially restates workflow steps 1-3 (e.g. "What is the counterfactual..." and "Is there something else that could affect both treatment assignment and the outcome?") and could be trimmed. Anchor 4 fits: minor trimmable redundancy but no real verbosity. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: named check identifiers (cp.checks.PreTreatmentPlaceboCheck, cp.checks.LeaveOneOut, etc.), a fully specified output pattern, and a defined workflow. Minor gap: no example of actually invoking a CausalPy check or a worked claim; per the scoring notes an instruction-only skill is not penalized for lacking code when guidance is actionable, which keeps this above anchor 3. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step Investigation Workflow is clearly sequenced with each step defined (frame, evaluate, hunt, map, interpret, communicate); step 5 acts as an interpretive checkpoint but there are no explicit validate-and-retry loops. Not a destructive/batch operation, so the validation cap does not apply; not 5 because checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body signals three one-level-deep references, but reference/counterfactual_analysis.md, reference/threat_catalog.md, and reference/falsification_tests.md do not exist in the bundle (no reference/ or references/ directory is present), so navigation fails at the first hop and no detail content is actually available. Scored against the actual bundle structure per the judging guidelines, this falls to the low anchor rather than the 3-anchor (references present and clearly signaled). | 2 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |