Content
63%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 genuinely actionable skill body with executable code and a well-sequenced, validated workflow, weakened by duplication and injected reviewer-routing boilerplate that pad the token budget. The single-file monolith structure and a broken external reference leave organization room for improvement.
Suggestions
Delete the Figure Type Reference table (it duplicates the Step 3 decision tree) and merge Key Rules into the Step 8 checklist so vector-PDF and no-title rules are stated once.
Move the reviewer-routing blockquote (or all of Step 7's routing detail) into a separate reference file and fix or remove the ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md link, which points at a file not in the bundle.
Add an explicit error-recovery loop to Step 5 (e.g., "if a render fails the self-check, fix the script and re-run it") to upgrade the workflow's feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The bulk is efficient, concrete material (style config, per-figure scripts, bash loop), but there is clear waste: the Figure Type Reference table duplicates the Step 3 decision-tree table, Key Rules restate Step 8 checklist items (vector PDF and no-titles-inside-figures each appear twice), and the reviewer-routing blockquote is process boilerplate unrelated to figure generation. Fits "mostly efficient but could be tightened"; not 2 because the padding is a minority of tokens. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable guidance throughout: a complete paper_plot_style.py, a copy-paste line-plot script, a bash run loop, LaTeX table and include snippets. Minor gaps: the bar-chart snippet lacks its script header/imports, and scatter/heatmap/box-plot types get prose-table treatment only — fits "mostly executable with minor gaps" rather than fully comprehensive. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An explicit 8-step sequence with real checkpoints: verify outputs exist and are non-empty (Step 5), render-then-verify on the rendered PDF/PNG before review, and a partitioned correctness/guidance checklist (Step 8). Not 5 because there is no explicit on-failure recovery loop ("if check fails → fix script → re-run") and Step 7 is muddied by the injected reviewer-routing text. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-headered single file (~320 lines) with no bundle files at all, and its one external link (../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md) is dangling within this bundle. Content like the duplicate Figure Type Reference table and the extended checklist could live in reference files — fits "some structure but could be better organized"; the clear headers keep it above 2. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |