Content
78%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, code-rich skill body that encodes genuinely non-obvious PyMC-Marketing MMM patterns and points cleanly to a complete set of reference files. Its main weaknesses are minor: a few placeholder-bearing snippets and an implicit (rather than explicit) diagnostic failure-recovery loop.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation feedback loop after the diagnostics block (e.g., 'If divergences > 0 or R-hat >= 1.01: raise target_accept / reparameterize priors, then refit and re-check') to convert the implicit diagnostic gate into a concrete recovery path.
Replace or annotate the placeholder-bearing snippets (coords, spend_shares, sampler_config={...}, yaml_path=...) with concrete minimal values or a clear note pointing to the reference file that supplies them.
Trim the long mmm.summary method enumeration (or move it into references/plot.md or a dedicated summary reference) so the overview stays lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and encodes domain knowledge Claude would not already know (fit on full dataset, time-slice CV for stability, prior choices, BudgetOptimizerWrapper vs BudgetOptimizer), but the long mmm.summary method enumeration and a few framing sentences could be trimmed or moved to a reference — efficient with minor over-explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Heavily code-driven with copy-paste-ready snippets for the central operations (Quick Start, Model Specification, Diagnostics, Budget Optimization, Lift Test), though a few blocks use placeholders ([...], coords, spend_shares, sampler_config={...}, yaml_path=...) rather than fully executable values, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced 'Typical MMM Workflow' diagram plus ordered per-section steps, with stated validation thresholds (divergences must be 0, R-hat must be < 1.01); the recovery/feedback loop for failed diagnostics is only implicit rather than an explicit 'if failing, fix and refit' gate, keeping it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Each section is a concise overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to real bundle files (all 9 referenced references/*.md files exist), content is appropriately split between inline overview and detailed references, and navigation is easy with no nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |