Content
76%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 content is highly actionable with concrete examples and clear section organization, but the retrieval workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints and some formatting sections are more detailed than the lean ideal for a read-only presentation skill.
Suggestions
Tighten the Table Alignment and Value Formatting sections by trimming guidance that restates standard Markdown/common sense, to improve token efficiency.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Retrieval Workflow (e.g., 'confirm the discovered fields satisfy the request before fetching, and verify record count matches expectation') to strengthen workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is well-organized and mostly assumes Claude's competence, but a few sections restate obvious guidance and the extensive formatting detail pushes length beyond the lean ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, copy-paste-ready Markdown table and labeled-block examples, exact field-label mappings, explicit link-path formats, and worked timestamp examples covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The retrieval workflow lists clear steps and a fallback ('If no Twenty MCP tools are available, say that...'), but it performs a read-only presentation task with no destructive or batch validation step; the sequence has only an implicit discover-then-fetch-then-ask checkpoint rather than explicit validation gates. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is broken into well-signaled sections (Overview, Retrieval Workflow, Response Shape, Record Links, Dates, etc.) with no nested references and no bundle files, giving good structure with minor gaps where some detail could remain inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |