Content
57%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 overview with exemplary progressive disclosure — six clearly signaled, verified one-level-deep reference files and a helpful routing section. The weaknesses are in the code examples, which reference undefined variables and missing imports and so are not copy-paste executable, and in the absence of explicit validation steps inside the example workflows, which the rubric caps at 3 for batch/physical operations.
Suggestions
Make the Quick Start self-contained: create `tip_rack` and `plate` resources and include the resource imports (e.g. `from pylabrobot.resources import TIP_CAR_480_A00, Cos_96_DW_1ML, STARLetDeck`) so the snippet runs as written.
Embed validation into the example workflows as explicit steps (e.g. '1. Run with ChatterboxBackend + visualizer, 2. Confirm tip/volume state, 3. Only then switch the backend to STAR and run on hardware'), rather than mentioning simulation only in the best-practices list.
Merge 'Working with References' into 'Core Capabilities' (or replace one with the other) to remove the duplicated reference map and cut the nine-bullet 'When to Use' list, which repeats the frontmatter description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient (scannable headers, terse bullets, code over prose), but the same reference map is stated twice — the six 'Core Capabilities' bullet sections and then again almost identically in 'Working with References' — and filler like 'All reference files... contain comprehensive examples, API usage patterns, and best practices' plus the nine-bullet 'When to Use' list (which repeats the description) add padding. This is 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened', not the noticeably-verbose level of a 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Code examples exist for the main paths (setup, transfer, plate reading), but the Quick Start snippet references undefined variables (`tip_rack["A1:H1"]`, `plate["A1"]` are never created) and the transfer workflow uses `TIP_CAR_480_A00` and `Cos_96_DW_1mL` without any imports, so neither runs as written. Per the anchor for 3, there is 'some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details', whereas a 4 would require mostly executable code with only minor gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The example protocols show a rough sequence (setup → assign resources → pick tips → transfer → drop tips) but contain no validation checkpoints; the simulate-before-hardware advice exists only as a best-practices bullet, not as an explicit step in the workflows. Because these are batch, physically destructive robot operations, the rubric's cap applies: workflows lacking embedded validation/verification steps cannot score above 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md is a genuine overview: each of the six capability areas maps to a real file in references/ (all six listed files exist and match), references are one level deep, clearly signaled with paths in both the capability sections and the 'Working with References' routing guide, and the bulk of API detail is pushed to those files. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |