Content
60%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 analysis workflow with a real knowledge base behind it, undermined by significant bloat: redundant English-language directives, a duplicated When-to-Use section, and a 190-line report template that belongs in a reference file. Trimming could cut the body roughly in half without losing operational content.
Suggestions
Move the ~190-line report template from Step 6 into a references/report_template.md file and keep only the section outline and quality standards inline — this would improve both conciseness and progressive_disclosure.
State the English-language requirement once (e.g., in Overview or Important Notes) and delete the five other repetitions of it throughout the body, the report footer, and Key Principles.
Delete or compress the 'When to Use This Skill' section (it restates the frontmatter description) and the 'Important Notes' section (it recaps earlier content), replacing them with a one-line pointer; add a brief fallback for the case where a news-category search returns no results.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body runs ~724 lines with several padded/redundant sections: the English-language directive is repeated roughly six times (Overview, Step 1, report footer, Key Principles #10, Important Notes), 'When to Use This Skill' restates the frontmatter description, and 'Important Notes' recaps points already made. This matches the 2 anchor ('noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'); it avoids 1 because it does not explain basic concepts Claude already knows, and does not reach 3 because the redundancy is pervasive rather than occasional. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is largely executable: copy-paste WebSearch queries per news category, calibrated numeric impact thresholds (e.g., 'Severe: ±2%+ in day' for indices), an explicit 'Impact Score = (Price Impact Score × Breadth Multiplier) + Forward-Looking Modifier' formula with four worked examples, and a concrete report skeleton. It falls short of 5 because some guidance stays abstract ('Assess how many markets/sectors affected') and there is no fallback when searches return poor results, but it is well above the pseudocode-level 3 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow (collect → load references → score impact → analyze reactions → assess correlations → generate report) is clearly sequenced with explicit gates: 'Collect publication dates to ensure news is within 10-day window' and 'For each significant news item (Impact Score >5), conduct detailed reaction analysis'. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because error-recovery loops (e.g., what to do when a category search returns nothing) are absent, though the non-destructive nature of the task softens that. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Four reference files all exist (references/market_event_patterns.md, geopolitical_commodity_correlations.md, corporate_news_impact.md, trusted_news_sources.md), are one level deep with no nested references, and are clearly signaled with 'Always Load' plus conditional per-news-type loading instructions. The one organization gap — the ~190-line report template inlined in Step 6 that could live in references/ — keeps it at 4 rather than 5, but references are far better signaled than the 3 anchor describes. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |