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.
This is a well-built instruction-only skill: lean, concrete, and self-contained, with a clear procedure, a copy-paste output template, and explicit confidence criteria that provide genuinely non-obvious decision rules. The only meaningful improvement would be a short worked example showing a filled-in research memo.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient across five tight sections (목적, 입력, 절차, 출력 형식, 신뢰도 기준) with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows and no padding; every token earns its place. It clearly matches the top anchor rather than level 4, which reserves room for trimmable over-explanation that is absent here. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: a 5-step procedure, named source types ('공개 자료, 경쟁사 페이지, 통계, 기사, 채용공고'), a copy-paste output template with an exact table schema, and explicit confidence criteria with example sources per level. It stops short of level 5 because there is no filled-in worked example (e.g., one completed table row) demonstrating the intended result. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered 절차 is clearly sequenced with per-claim checkpoints (step 4 confidence assignment) and an explicit error-recovery path (step 5: mark as '[가정]' and write a verification plan). Minor gaps — e.g., the referent of '참가자' in step 1 is ambiguous — keep it at level 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into clear, well-labeled sections; per the rubric's simple-skill guidance this earns the top score. There are no bundle files, so structure alone is the correct basis for scoring. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |