Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, well-organized, mostly copy-paste-ready skill body with strong conciseness and clean section structure. The main gap is the absence of validation/verification steps in the create and search workflows, which caps workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add a verification checkpoint to the create-note workflow, e.g. after writing, confirm the file exists and that its [[wikilinks]] resolve to real notes (grep the vault) before considering the task done.
Define what a 'learning unit' means in create step 2, or point to a concrete template/example, so that step is actionable rather than abstract.
For the find-related-notes/backlinks workflow, note how to interpret empty results (no backlinks found) so Claude knows the next action.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean sections with executable bash snippets and no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is Obsidian/wikilinks' preamble); every line earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Dominantly copy-paste-ready commands (find/grep with real vault paths for search, backlinks, and index discovery) plus concrete naming rules; the one vague line in the create workflow ('写成一个 learning unit') is minor against the concrete guidance that dominates. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are clearly sequenced (numbered create steps, single-command search/find) but contain no validation or verification checkpoints, capping at level 2 per the rubric's missing-validation guideline. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple under-50-line skill with no bundle files, organized into clear sections (location, naming, linking, workflows); per the simple-skills note, well-organized sections alone justify level 3, and there are no nested references to penalize. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |