Content
86%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 a lean, well-structured instruction for launching a background research agent against primary sources, with a clear numbered workflow and concrete output requirements. Its main gap is the lack of an explicit validation step and the absence of a concrete agent-launch prompt.
Suggestions
Add a brief verification step (e.g., 'confirm the Markdown file exists and each claim has a resolvable source link') to push workflow clarity toward 5.
Optionally include a one-line concrete example of how to launch/prompt the background agent so the actionability reaches copy-paste-ready level.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body that assumes Claude's competence and adds only skill-specific constraints (primary sources, per-claim source attribution); no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not below 5 because every line carries a distinct instruction. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance enumerating what counts as a primary source (official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs) and specifying output format (Markdown, per-claim source) and placement rules; not score 5 because the exact mechanism/prompt for launching the background agent is not given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear three-step numbered sequence for a simple, non-destructive skill; the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply (writing a notes Markdown file). Not score 5 because no explicit verification step (e.g., confirm the file exists or sources resolve) is included. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, no external bundle files, and well-organized with an intro plus a numbered list; the simple-skill exception lets progressive disclosure score 5 with just well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |