Content
73%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 delivers a rigorous, highly executable multi-stage workflow with validation gates, an explicit score-based feedback loop, and a final verification step — workflow clarity is exemplary. Its weaknesses are redundancy (ASCII diagram, Model Summary table, and duplicated avoid-lists all restate the workflow) and minor gaps in the optional critic and scoring criteria.
Suggestions
Cut one of the three workflow restatements — the ~50-line ASCII diagram, the numbered Steps, or the Model Summary table — to reclaim a large token block (this is the lowest-scoring dimension).
Merge the 'What to AVOID (CRITICAL)' list into the '❌ Avoid' list above it; they repeat the same items (thin arrows, tiny text, wrong directions).
Fix the stale path references in Key Rules 12-13 ('tools/paper_illustration_image2.py') to match the resolver's canonical scripts/ location, and either include or inline the essential commands from ../shared-references/*.md, which do not resolve inside this skill bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and mostly operational, but carries several padded/redundant sections: a ~50-line ASCII workflow diagram that duplicates the numbered Steps and the Model Summary table, a 'What to AVOID (CRITICAL)' list that repeats items already in the '❌ Avoid' list (thin arrows, tiny text), a preflight checklist rendered twice (text block plus repeated numbered commands), and a jargon-heavy reviewer-routing preamble at the top. Fits anchor 3 ('Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') — not 2 because the padding is structural redundancy rather than explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and the bulk of the file is genuinely task-specific. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The main path is fully executable: exact MCP tool names with parameters (prompt, cwd, outputPath, system, timeoutSeconds), copy-paste bash for preflight/finalize/verify, a concrete resolver script, explicit output paths, and concrete refinement-feedback examples ('Increase spacing between genome scan and scoring modules'). Minor gaps keep it below 5: the optional spawn_agent critique is described but never shown how to invoke, the 1-10 review score has no scoring criteria, and the reviewer-routing preamble defers to external shared-references without giving the actual commands. Fits anchor 4 ('Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An explicit Step 0-7 sequence with validation checkpoints at every gate: preflight must return ok=true before rendering, generation is polled to done=true with failure surfaced honestly, a strict 1-10 review with a Score ≥ 9 acceptance threshold, and a concrete feedback loop (score < 9 → targeted refinement prompt → figure_v2/v3 → re-review), plus finalize/verify before claiming success and a Repair Path for missed artifacts. A rendered preflight checklist precedes the work. This matches anchor 5 ('Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: sections are clearly organized, the one bundle script (scripts/paper_illustration_image2.py) is appropriately external and referenced with exact subcommands, and external references are clearly signaled one level deep with section pins (e.g. shared-references/integration-contract.md §2). Two things keep it from 5: the ../shared-references/*.md links do not resolve within this skill bundle, and the ~80-line CVPR style guide plus the routing preamble are inline content that could live in reference files. Fits anchor 4 ('Good structure; most content appropriately placed; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps') better than 3, since references are clearly signaled rather than buried. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |