Content
77%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 strong, executable reference: five complete working solvers, a method-selection matrix, a stability table, an explicit validation checklist, and symptom/cause/fix troubleshooting with built-in error checkpoints. Weaknesses are the one bloated, off-topic prose paragraph in the Validation Checklist section and the absence of any reference-file split for the sizable inline method guides.
Suggestions
Replace the ~18-line 'When the real problem data ... supplied only at evaluation time ... hidden points' paragraph with two or three tight checklist items (e.g., 'Choose resolution at run time: solve at 2-3 refinements within the time budget and stop when the change is well below tolerance'; 'Manufactured tests must include content outside your own basis — high wavenumbers, sharp fronts — and be checked against withheld real data'), which is the main conciseness drag.
Move the DeepXDE/PINN workflow and the stability/troubleshooting reference tables into one-level-deep files (e.g., references/pinn.md, references/stability.md) with clearly signaled pointers from SKILL.md, keeping the core finite-difference and MOL workflows inline.
Trim the plotting boilerplate repeated in each workflow (figure creation, savefig) to a single shared snippet so the code examples focus on the numerics.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most of the body is lean — method-selection table, self-contained executable functions, compact stability and troubleshooting tables — but the Validation Checklist section carries an ~18-line dense prose paragraph ('When the real problem data ... are supplied only at evaluation time and a tolerance must be met on hidden points ...') about hidden evaluation-time oracles that is off-topic for a general PDE-solver skill and could be cut to two sentences. This matches the 3 anchor (mostly efficient, some unnecessary explanation) rather than 4, where only minor trimming would be needed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every workflow ships complete, copy-paste-ready Python: 'solve_heat_1d' with a runtime 'CFL stability check' that raises on violation, the sparse Kronecker Poisson solver, the pseudospectral wave solver, a working DeepXDE PINN with install command, and a MOL/solve_ivp variant. The 5 anchor (fully executable, covers common cases) fits; nothing is pseudocode and key numerical details (grid construction, BC enforcement, validation against the analytical solution) are all explicit. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill sequences decisions and validation well: a method-selection table routes by PDE type/geometry, each solver embeds a checkpoint (the CFL check raising 'ValueError(f"CFL violated: r = {r:.4f} > 0.5...")'), a six-item post-solve Validation Checklist ('Verify against analytical solution', 'Run mesh convergence study', 'Check boundary conditions'), and a Troubleshooting table pairs symptoms with causes and fixes — an explicit feedback loop. This matches the 5 anchor (explicit validation steps, error-recovery feedback loops, checklist) rather than 4, where checkpoints would only be 'mostly' present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so everything lives inline in a single ~340-line SKILL.md. Sections are well-headed and navigable, but self-contained full workflows — especially the complete DeepXDE/PINN example and the stability reference table — are content that would plausibly belong in one-level-deep reference files, matching the 3 anchor (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) rather than 4 (most content appropriately placed across files). | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |