Content
75%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 well-structured, policy-dense wrapper that respects the reader's competence, gives concrete decision rules with bilingual example phrasing, and includes an explicit claim-preservation validation loop. Weaknesses are mild: some duplication with the required reference file, workflow steps distributed across sections rather than sequenced in one place, and one referenced bundle path (upstream/instructions.md) that does not resolve within the provided skill directory.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body contains no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every line is task-specific policy, decision rules, or file pointers — and copy-paste example phrases are given in both languages. It is not 5 because several rules duplicate guidance in the communication profile that step 1 already requires reading (e.g., claim preservation appears in both 'Preserve the author's claims, qualifications...' and the profile's 'Preserve facts, attribution, commitments...'), and a few dense negative-rule bullets could be merged or trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is mostly executable: exact file paths to read, an activation rule ('An explicit request... activates this skill... A recommendation alone does not'), concrete rerouting ('If the user asks for minimal cleanup, use `avoid-ai-writing`'), a private-claims checklist procedure, and ready-to-use example recommendation sentences in Spanish and English. It is not 5 because the core rewriting mechanics are delegated to 'Apply its pattern review and voice matching' — instructions stored in an upstream file the reader must load — and some rules ('Infer only what the text and conversation support') remain judgment-level rather than concrete steps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear and includes an explicit validation checkpoint with a fix-before-deliver loop: 'Before drafting, make a private checklist of the source's individual claims. After drafting, account for each... Restore any missing claim before delivery', plus 'Do not invent verification results'. It is not 5 because the workflow is assembled from three separate sections (Read and apply, Scope and output, Recommend/ask/proceed) rather than presented as one ordered process, leaving the reader to reconstruct the order of activation check, reference loading, checklist, drafting, verification, and delivery. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview wrapper with well-signaled, one-level-deep references — [communication profile](references/communication-profile.md) and [provenance](references/provenance.md) both exist in the bundle and each link explains what the file is for. It is not 5 because the referenced `upstream/instructions.md`, the file step 2 depends on, is not present in the bundle, so a referenced path does not resolve; provenance also points at out-of-bundle targets (`../LICENSE`, `skills-lock.json`) without in-skill navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |