Content
62%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's core workflow is exemplary — fully sequenced, gated, and verifiable with concrete commands — but it is wrapped in substantial padding and duplication that costs roughly 40% of its ~400 lines. Style-guide and resolver content belong in reference files rather than the main SKILL.md.
Suggestions
Cut the ~50-line ASCII workflow diagram (the numbered Workflow section already conveys it), the "Phase 3.2 (Arch C)" migration commentary, and the duplicated Key Rules / Repair Path / Model Summary sections, which restate Steps 0–7 nearly verbatim.
Move the CVPR/ICLR/NeurIPS style guide and the multi-layer helper-resolution script into files under references/ (e.g. references/style-guide.md, references/helper-resolution.md) and link to them in one line each.
Replace unfilled placeholders (<cwd>, <best_png>) with concrete example values, and either explain the opening reviewer-routing blockquote in plain language or move it to the referenced reviewer-backends file, since it is unintelligible without external context.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Roughly 40% of the body is padding: a ~50-line ASCII workflow diagram that restates the Workflow section, a ~25-line layered helper-resolution script with installation error messages, "Phase 3.2 (Arch C) moved the canonical implementation" changelog commentary, and Key Rules / Repair Path / Model Summary sections that repeat Steps 0–7 nearly verbatim. There is even an untranslated Chinese sentence ("目标：既不保守也不花哨，找到平衡点"). This is noticeably below the midpoint — several unnecessary or duplicated sections — rather than "mostly efficient with some tightening" (anchor 3). | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: exact helper commands ("python3 \"$IMAGE2_HELPER\" preflight --workspace <cwd> --json-out figures/ai_generated/preflight.json"), concrete MCP call parameters (prompt, cwd, outputPath, system, timeoutSeconds), specific refinement feedback examples, and a ready LaTeX snippet. It falls short of anchor 5 because commands carry unfilled placeholders (<cwd>, <best_png>), depend on the preceding resolution script, and the opening reviewer-routing blockquote gives direction ("preserve this slot's tier, fresh contexts... deterministic gates") too cryptic to act on without external context. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–7 are clearly sequenced with every validation checkpoint explicit: the preflight gate ("If preflight is not `ok=true`, stop and say so clearly"), the acceptance gate ("Score ≥ 9?" with targeted refinement feedback looping back), and final "finalize" + "verify" receipts — plus a rendered pre-flight checklist. This matches the top anchor (explicit validation, feedback loops, checklist); the confusing preamble and the Model Summary's omission of Step 6 are noise, not validation gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle's scripts/paper_illustration_image2.py exists and is correctly referenced, and section headers are clear, but a ~75-line CVPR/NeurIPS style guide and the helper-resolution plumbing are inlined in SKILL.md when they clearly belong in reference files. The two markdown links point outside the bundle (../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/integration-contract.md) and no references/ directory exists in the skill. Structure is present but content that should be separate is inline — anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |