Content
71%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, actionable skill body with good progressive disclosure via a clearly signaled reference file. Its main weakness is redundant explanation of E-E-A-T concepts across the intro and 'Explain' sections that could be tightened.
Suggestions
Consolidate the duplicated E-E-A-T / quality-rater rationale currently split between the intro and the 'Explain' section into a single concise justification.
Add a short sample or template sentence or two for the editorial policy sections so the 'Fix' steps are copy-paste ready rather than structural only.
Tighten the 'Check' and 'Code Review' sections, which overlap on verification of the editorial policy page, into one explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient, but the opening paragraph and the 'Explain' section both restate the same E-E-A-T / quality-rater rationale, which is a concept Claude already knows and could be consolidated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The 'Fix' section gives concrete executable guidance — specific URL paths ('/editorial-policy'), a named section list, and exact linking locations — but it provides structure rather than sample boilerplate policy wording, a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Fix' section is a clear numbered sequence and the 'Code Review' section supplies a verification checkpoint (200 status, substantive content), though no explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop is described. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized into labeled sections and ends with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference to the real 'references/rule.md' file for full implementation details, giving easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |