Content
70%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.
A well-sequenced, honest workflow with unusually concrete external-API guidance and strong validation checkpoints in the completion and handover sections. Its weaknesses are verbosity in the craft section (restating standard responsive/accessibility knowledge), and poor use of the bundle: a complete example asset exists but is never linked from the body, while its subject matter is crammed into one dense inline paragraph.
Suggestions
Replace the external example URL in Section 3 with a reference to the bundled file, e.g. "A complete working example is in [assets/enquiry-form.html](assets/enquiry-form.html)", and trim the inline enquiry-form rules to the essentials that file doesn't already demonstrate.
Cut Section 4's restatements of standard web knowledge (44px tap targets, 4.5:1 contrast, lazy loading, WebP/AVIF) down to the few non-obvious rules, or move them to a reference checklist file.
Trim narrative rationale sentences (e.g. the "shared on cards, menus, QR codes..." motivation in Section 6) to single clauses — the rules themselves already convey the intent.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow-specific rules earn their tokens (gap markers like `[form endpoint]`, "Never invent reviews, awards, certifications, prices"), but Section 4 restates widely known web basics Claude already has — "Tap targets at least 44 px", "contrast at least 4.5:1", "`loading="lazy"` below the fold" — and narrative padding like "A business site gets shared on cards, menus, QR codes, Google Maps and Instagram bios, so the address matters on day one" could be cut to a single clause. This fits "mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened" rather than the noticeably padded 2 or the lean 5. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact API calls with parameters (`GET https://www.adddomain.net/api/check?name=<label>&tlds=com,net&src=github`), response semantics, a copy-paste-ready offer script, `og:image` (1200x630), `tel:` links, and per-business-type action specs. Minor gaps keep it below fully-executable: the DNS step defers specifics to "that host's current settings", and the HTML/CSS build steps are directional checklists with no inline example markup even though a ready example file exists in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The eight numbered sections form a coherent brief → plan → build → craft → SEO → address → verification → handover sequence, with explicit validation checkpoints: Section 7's per-item honest reporting states ("tested or untested", "not published or checked at its actual public URL"), "Check the address and HTTPS before saying it works. A record seen in DNS is not yet a live site", and an error-recovery loop ("If a response is invalid, mark the check incomplete and let the owner verify it at their registrar"). This matches the anchor with explicit validation, feedback loops, and a checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle contains `assets/enquiry-form.html` (a complete, working enquiry-form example) but the SKILL.md body never references it — it points to an external URL (https://www.adddomain.net/guide/static-website-enquiry-form) instead, leaving the local asset orphaned and undiscoverable. Meanwhile the dense "Quote or enquiry" bullet in Section 3 is exactly the content that belongs in that separate file. This fits "some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled" rather than the 4 anchor's "references mostly clear". | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |