Content
86%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 strong instruction-only skill body: a clearly staged diverge-then-converge framework with specific counts, filters, worked examples, failure patterns, and a real, well-integrated reference bundle. Weaknesses are minor — a few throat-clearing sentences, slight duplication of the reference rubric's summary line, and no explicit recovery path when candidate names fail filters.
Suggestions
Remove the lines that add no instruction ('Names cluster by approach', 'Every brand has a story') and drop the duplicated six-criteria summary sentence, pointing instead to references/naming-evaluation-rubric.md.
Add a short fallback in the Workflow for when all naming candidates fail the six-criteria filter (e.g., 'expand to other naming approaches or relax stretchability'), making the filter checkpoint a true feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely efficient domain methodology Claude cannot reproduce (specific counts, named filters, an approach table), but contains a few trimmable lines ('Names cluster by approach', 'Every brand has a story') and duplicates the six-criteria summary sentence verbatim from references/naming-evaluation-rubric.md; this fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact quantities (3-5 territories, 8-15 candidates per direction, 2-4 mood directions), six named naming filters, a good/bad mood-direction example pair, defined narrative shapes, and a fillable output template in the bundle; it does not rely on vague direction. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with an input gate ('If the audience is unclear, run brand-discovery first') and an explicit six-criteria filter checkpoint, but there is no error-recovery/retry loop (e.g., what to do when all naming candidates fail availability); this matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than the full feedback-loop anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body serves as a well-structured overview with two clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (ideation-output-template.md, naming-evaluation-rubric.md), both of which exist in the bundle, each annotated with its purpose and linked at the point of use in the Workflow; the split of criteria summary in-body and detail in the reference is appropriate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |