Content
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable research skill with concrete MCP tool calls and a well-defined report template. Its main weaknesses are the lack of validation checkpoints within the workflow (e.g., what to do when searches return poor results) and some verbosity in sections like activation triggers and examples that Claude could infer. The content would benefit from integrating quality checks as explicit workflow gates rather than a separate rules section.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints within the workflow, e.g., after Step 3 check if sufficient unique sources were found and retry with different queries if not, and after Step 4 verify source quality before proceeding to synthesis.
Trim or remove the 'When to Activate' and 'Examples' sections — these are trigger phrases and use cases that Claude can infer from the skill description and workflow.
Consider splitting the report template and quality rules into a referenced file (e.g., REPORT_TEMPLATE.md) to keep the main skill leaner and improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but has some unnecessary padding. The 'When to Activate' section lists trigger phrases Claude could infer, the 'Examples' section at the end adds little value beyond what's already clear, and some explanatory text like 'Both together give the best coverage' is filler. However, the core workflow and code examples are reasonably tight. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific MCP tool calls with exact function signatures and parameters, a concrete report template with markdown structure, specific search strategies (2-3 keyword variations, 15-30 sources), and clear instructions for parallel execution with subagents. The guidance is directly executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced and logical, but lacks explicit validation checkpoints. There's no step to verify source quality before synthesis, no feedback loop if searches return poor results, and no checkpoint between reading sources and writing the report. The quality rules are listed but not integrated as validation gates within the workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear headers and sections, but it's a fairly long monolithic document (~120 lines of content). The report template, quality rules, and parallel research guidance could be split into referenced files. There are no references to external files for advanced usage or detailed examples. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |