Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, highly actionable skill that provides a clear end-to-end workflow for breaking specs into Linear issues. Its greatest strengths are the concrete MCP tool references, the well-structured 6-step process with explicit approval gates, and the detailed issue template. The main weakness is moderate verbosity in the exploratory steps and the monolithic structure, though the content density is generally justified by the complexity of the task.
Suggestions
Tighten step 2 (Explore the codebase) — the bullet list of examples could be condensed into a single rule with one illustrative example rather than four.
Consider extracting the issue template into a separate referenced file (e.g., ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md) to improve progressive disclosure and make the main skill body more scannable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but some sections are somewhat verbose — e.g., the detailed explanations of what to look for in the codebase (step 2) and the repeated emphasis on not guessing could be tightened. The issue template is appropriately detailed since it's a reference artifact, but the surrounding prose could be leaner. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: specific MCP tool names (mcp__linear-server__save_issue, mcp__linear-server__create_issue_relation), exact parameter names (type: 'blocks', issueId, relatedIssueId), a complete issue template with all sections, specific acceptance criteria including exact shell commands, and clear examples of good vs bad dependency naming. This is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step process is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: step 3 requires a coverage map and user approval before proceeding, step 5 is a dedicated quiz/approval gate, and step 6 specifies dependency ordering for publishing. Feedback loops are built in — iterate until approved, flag gaps before proceeding, ask rather than guess. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and a separated issue template, but it's a monolithic file with no references to supporting documents. The issue template could potentially be a separate referenced file. For a skill of this length (~150 lines of substantive content), some splitting would improve navigability, though the inline template is justified since it's the core deliverable format. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |