Content
28%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 generic template: well-organized and brief, but with virtually no domain substance — no named frameworks, no concrete steps, no examples — and it points to a resource file that does not exist. It reads as scaffolding for a skill rather than the skill itself.
Suggestions
Replace the vague instructions with the actual frameworks the skill claims to offer (e.g. Porter's Five Forces, SWOT, competitor profiling, positioning maps) with concrete steps and a worked example.
Either create 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' with the promised patterns and examples, or remove both references to it — the dangling path currently delivers nothing.
Drop the verbatim repetition of the description and the tautological 'Use/Do not use' bullets, and replace 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes' with a specific validation checkpoint in the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short with no over-explanation of known concepts, but it carries real redundancy: the description is repeated verbatim as the intro, the 'Use this skill when' bullets are tautological ('Working on competitive landscape analysis tasks'), and the reference to the playbook appears in both Instructions and Resources. This matches anchor 3 — mostly efficient but includes unnecessary content that could be tightened — rather than anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The instructions are pure abstraction — 'Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes', 'Provide actionable steps and verification' — with no named framework, method, command, or example despite the skill promising 'Comprehensive frameworks'. This matches anchor 1 ('entirely vague or abstract; only describes rather than instructs'); the single pointer to a resource file does not rescue it, especially since that file does not exist. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough implicit sequence exists (clarify goals, apply practices, validate outcomes), but steps are poorly defined and validation is name-only with no checkpoints — matching anchor 2 ('rough sequence present but many gaps; validation absent'). It is above anchor 1 because steps are listed and ordered, but below anchor 3 because nothing is concrete enough to act as a real sequence. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned (Use when / Do not use / Instructions / Resources / Limitations) and under 50 lines, but it directs readers to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for 'detailed patterns and examples' and no such file or directory exists in the bundle — a dangling, unresolvable reference. This matches anchor 3 (structure present but references not effectively usable) rather than anchor 4, where references are mostly clear and resolvable. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 9 / 20 Passed |