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.
The content is a compact, well-structured two-task skill with lean code snippets and clear sectioning that earns top conciseness and progressive-disclosure marks. It loses a little on actionability and workflow clarity because some variables are assumed and the validate flow lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop.
Suggestions
Show how inputs (concept_name, graph, schema_file) are obtained or defined so the snippets are fully copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit validate->fix->revalidate feedback loop for the validate task to handle reported errors.
Clarify how a graph or schema_file is loaded before calling validate_graph so the workflow is self-contained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and free of padding, explaining no concepts Claude already knows and letting tight code snippets and one-line output notes carry the meaning, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, mostly executable code (OntologyManager(), get_concept, validate_graph with parameters) plus output descriptions, but variables like concept_name and graph are assumed rather than set up, leaving minor gaps that keep it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each task is a simple, unambiguous single action with a usage line and clear sections, but the validate path only lists 'correction suggestions' without an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop, so it stays below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with no external references needed and no bundle files present, the well-organized sectioned structure satisfies the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |