Content
53%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 conveys a workable instruction-only workflow with some concrete deliverables (scratch Python files, a research .md under .claude/plans), but it is hampered by redundancy, vague steps, and an implicit rather than validated sequence. It is serviceable but could be substantially sharpened with a defined output format and explicit test/verify checkpoints.
Suggestions
Remove the verbatim repetition of the frontmatter description at the top of the body and merge the redundant closing lines about the research file into the "Document base" section.
Define the expected structure of the research .md file (e.g., sections for request quote, affected files, approach options with pros/cons, assumptions, tested solution) so the output is reproducible.
Make the sequence explicit and add checkpoints: number the phases (analyze request → test assumptions in scratch scripts → verify output supports the approach → write research file → delete scratch files) and state what to do when a test disproves an assumption.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and mostly lean, but it repeats the frontmatter description verbatim ("Structure a research based on the user request..."), and lines like "You only need to provide the research plan and a possible tested solution" alongside "No other md files are needed, everything must be collapse in the research file" are redundant restatements that could be tightened — matching the 3 anchor rather than 4 where excess is only minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance exists (create temporary Python files, save to ".claude/plans/{plan_name_folder}/research" as ".md", delete them after), but many steps are vague direction ("Check python files related to the request", "Make reasonable technical decisions") with no example of the research document's expected structure — the 3 anchor (incomplete concrete guidance, missing key details) fits better than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed as "You must" bullets and sections imply a rough order (research → test → document), but the sequencing between sections is implicit, and there are no explicit validation checkpoints beyond "based on the output decide what should be done" — matching the 3 anchor (sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit) rather than 2, since a rough sequence with concrete deliverables is present. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed, and content is split into reasonable sections ("Python test validations", "Document base"); the unanchored "You must" bullet list and "No user interaction required" block floating under the intro are minor organization gaps, placing it at 4 rather than the well-organized 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |