Content
78%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 well-structured, highly actionable skill body: executable commands throughout, clear sequenced workflows with validation-first guidance, and exemplary one-level-deep reference navigation to real bundle files. The main weakness is redundancy — several late sections (Key Reminders, Reference Documentation, Example Interactions) duplicate or over-explain earlier content — and only implicit error-recovery loops.
Suggestions
Cut or merge "Key Reminders" into "Best Practices" and trim the "Reference Documentation" section to a one-line pointer per file, since each reference is already introduced inline where it is used.
Make the validation feedback loop explicit (e.g. "If validate_files.py reports errors: fix the flagged issue, then re-run validation before proceeding") in the workflow sections.
Trim "Example Interactions" and "Handling User Requests" to a short table of request → workflow/template mapping instead of multi-step response-approach scripts.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most of the body is dense, domain-specific commands and parameters that earn their tokens, but there are several padded or duplicated sections: "Key Reminders" restates "Best Practices", "Reference Documentation" re-describes files already pointed to inline, and "Example Interactions"/"Handling User Requests" over-explain response strategies Claude could infer. This fits "mostly efficient but could be tightened" better than the noticeably-verbose anchor 2, since the padding is a minority of the document. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The body is full of copy-paste-ready commands (bamCoverage with normalization flags, computeMatrix/plotHeatmap pairs, workflow generator invocations, samtools index for missing indices) covering the common cases, matching the fully-executable anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequences are clear ("QC → Normalization → Comparison/Visualization") with an explicit validation-first checkpoint ("Before running any analysis, validate BAM, bigWig, and BED files") repeated in Quick Start and Best Practices. It falls short of a 5 because the error-recovery feedback loop is only implied — the Validation Errors section says errors are "explained in script output" rather than giving an explicit validate → fix → re-validate cycle. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body acts as an overview pointing to four reference files, two scripts, and one asset — all verified to exist with the referenced section names — via clearly signaled one-level-deep references, per-file "Use this reference when" guidance, named target sections, and grep navigation patterns. Content is appropriately split, with only brief inline summaries (quick selection guide, common genome sizes) fronting the full reference material. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |