Content
60%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 clear, actionable interactive workflow with good reference structure, but it is noticeably padded: it re-teaches standard requirements-engineering concepts (FR/NFR taxonomy, RFC 2119, Gherkin) and repeats its output template twice. Trimming known-concept explanations and deduplicating templates would materially improve token efficiency.
Suggestions
Cut the 'Requirement Categories' and 'Labeling Conventions > Priority Levels (RFC 2119)' sections or reduce them to one-line reminders — Claude already knows FR/NFR taxonomy, RFC 2119, and Given/When/Then format, so they consume tokens without adding value.
Deduplicate the output template: 'Structure Output' (workflow step 6) and 'Output Format' present the same markdown skeleton twice; keep only the more complete one and cross-reference it from the workflow step.
Move the duplicated analysis-dimension list out of the body — the 'Analysis Framework' section already points to references/analysis_framework.md, so the inline 'Key areas to analyze' list and the Initial Analysis dimensions can be consolidated into that reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Several sections explain concepts Claude already knows ("Functional Requirements (FR) What the system must do", RFC 2119 MUST/SHOULD/MAY definitions, Given/When/Then format), and the output template is duplicated between "Structure Output" and "Output Format". Not a 1 because the ambiguity patterns and labeling conventions are genuinely non-obvious skill-specific content; not a 3 because the padding and duplication are substantial rather than incidental. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact question templates ("What exactly does [vague term] mean in measurable terms?"), specific labels ([CONFIRMED]/[ASSUMED]/[INFERRED]), full markdown output skeletons, and concrete vague-to-enhanced examples. Not a 5 because "Enrich with Domain Knowledge" stays generic and full worked rounds live only in the external examples file. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step Enhancement Workflow and a three-round Interactive Loop with explicit "Wait for user responses" checkpoints and a final Quality Checks checklist. Not a 5 because the quality checklist has no recovery path (what to do when a check fails) and follow-up loops are implied rather than explicit validation steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Two real, one-level-deep references (references/analysis_framework.md, references/examples.md) are clearly signaled with inline summaries of their contents. Not a 5 because the body duplicates reference content ("Key areas to analyze" restates analysis_framework.md's dimensions) and inline sections like the ambiguity patterns could be split out to slim the main file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |