Content
92%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 is an exemplary deprecation stub: a single unambiguous redirect instruction, a concrete fallback pointer, and no padding. Its only minor cost is two sentences of rationale about the retired pipeline's flaws that add context beyond what executing the redirect requires.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the rationale for retirement ("unbounded color palettes, no real paper figures, and no print-canvas verification") is explanation that could be trimmed without losing the redirect instruction. Anchor 4 ("minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed") fits better than anchor 5's "every token earns its place". | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The instruction is fully executable and copy-paste ready: "Immediately proceed with /paper-poster-html, passing through all of the user's arguments unchanged. Do not attempt the legacy LaTeX flow," plus a concrete git command for the legacy fallback. Anchor 5 fits. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-purpose skill whose one action (redirect to the replacement) is completely unambiguous, which the judging guidelines allow to score 5. There are no destructive or batch operations that would impose the validation cap. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files, and is organized into a clear title, status statement, action instruction, and recovery pointer. The one reference (git history) is one level deep and clearly signaled, matching the simple-skill exception for a score of 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |