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.
The body is efficient and well-sectioned with a clear draft-state taxonomy and explicit safety boundaries (stops at draft handoff, approval gate owns sending). Its effectiveness is undermined by the dangling primary reference: the campaign-planning workflow it points to is not in the bundle, and no example calendar/draft structure compensates, leaving the core procedure unreachable.
Suggestions
Include the referenced workflows/plan-campaign.md in the bundle (or inline the campaign-planning and handoff steps) — the body's main workflow link currently points to a file that is not present, leaving the core procedure unreachable.
Add a minimal example of the output artifacts, such as a sample calendar table row or CSV header with the draft-state column, so Claude knows exactly what structure to produce.
Consolidate the approval-gate boundary statements — currently stated in the intro, the draft-states section, and the follow-up paragraph — into one place to trim redundant tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with a tight draft-states table and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It is not level 5 because the approval-gate boundary is stated three times (intro, table context, follow-up paragraph) and could be consolidated; not level 3 because there is no padded or unnecessary explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance exists (draft-state taxonomy with lifecycle rules, "Markdown or CSV files", "the consumer's existing working-file location"), but the primary procedure is delegated to "workflows/plan-campaign.md", which is absent from the bundle, and no example calendar or draft structure is given. This is incomplete concrete guidance rather than merely high-level hints, so it sits at 3 rather than 4 or 2. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A partial sequence is present via the draft lifecycle (draft → needs review → approved; changed pieces return to needs review) with an explicit approval checkpoint. It is not level 4 because the core campaign-planning and handoff steps are not in the body — they live in the missing referenced file; not level 2 because the state flow that is present is coherent and explicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections (Use, Draft states, Source and licence) are well organized and the workflow reference is clearly signaled. It is not level 4 because both referenced files — workflows/plan-campaign.md and LICENSE — are absent from the bundle, so navigation dead-ends at the skill's main content, which is more than a minor organization gap. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |