Content
81%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 content is highly actionable with a clear, validated multi-phase workflow and executable MCP prompts. Its main weakness is conciseness: the cross-model-reviewer rationale and the composing diagram add tokens that could be trimmed without losing clarity.
Suggestions
Tighten the Phase 3 rationale blockquote: condense the ARIS cross-model-reviewer justification into 1-2 sentences or move it to a reference, as it explains design philosophy rather than instructing action.
Remove or shrink the "Composing with Other Skills" pipeline diagram, which restates Phase 4's novelty-check/research-review steps already detailed above.
Fix the Phase 1 numbering duplication (two steps labeled "2.") so the sequence reads cleanly and does not confuse the step order.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but includes some padding that could be tightened, e.g., the lengthy Phase-3 blockquote rationale and the "Composing with Other Skills" section that restates the Phase 4 pipeline, matching anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste ready MCP call blocks with full prompts, explicit constants, a complete report template, and concrete flags (run_in_background: true, kill on timeout), matching the fully executable anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (feasibility gate, kill-on-timeout, GPU-hour budget tracking) and feedback loops (collect partial results, re-rank by pilot signal), matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned into phases with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to shared-references and sibling skills, but no bundle reference files exist in this skill and the body is fairly monolithic at ~260 lines, so it is not a clean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |