Content
65%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 exemplary in brevity and boundary-setting (draft states, approval gate, explicit non-posting scope), but its core process guidance lives entirely in a workflow file that is absent from the bundle, leaving both actionability and navigation incomplete. What is present is clean and well organized; what is missing is the substance a reader needs to execute a campaign plan.
Suggestions
Include the workflows/plan-campaign.md file in the bundle (or inline a minimal 3–5 step campaign sequence in the body) so the core process is reachable — currently the link is broken within the delivered skill.
Add a small example of the calendar file structure (e.g. a two-row Markdown/CSV table with date, platform, state, claim) so "calendar", "claim inventory", and "asset brief" artifacts are concrete rather than named-only.
Per-platform adaptation is named but undefined; either list the platforms handled or point to a concrete reference for adaptation rules.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At roughly 35 lines the body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no concept explanations, no padding, and every section (Use, Draft states, Source) carries operational or required metadata. The kendex and license blocks are brief administrative notices rather than verbosity, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete directives exist — "Keep the calendar, claim inventory, copy and asset briefs as Markdown or CSV files", "Use the consumer's existing working-file location", and a defined draft-state table — but the key execution details (calendar layout, per-platform adaptation, brief format) are delegated to "Follow [Plan a campaign](workflows/plan-campaign.md)", so the body alone leaves missing key details. It is an instruction-only skill, so absent code is not penalized, but the deferred core workflow keeps it at anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The draft-state machine (draft → needs review → approved) with explicit approval-gate rules ("A changed piece returns to `needs review`", "An editorial review does not supply user approval") provides a clear checkpoint model, but no sequenced steps for planning a campaign appear in the body — the sequence lives in the referenced workflow file. Sequence present through states yet the overall process steps and their order are missing, fitting anchor 3; not 4 because the campaign-building sequence itself is absent rather than having only minor checkpoint gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is short and well-sectioned with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer ("Follow [Plan a campaign](workflows/plan-campaign.md)"), but the bundle contains no workflows/ directory — both referenced paths (workflows/plan-campaign.md and LICENSE) dead-end, so navigation to the detailed material is broken in the actual bundle structure. Good signaling but a broken reference holds it at anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |