Content
66%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 excels at workflow clarity — sequenced steps, mandatory validation, a fix-and-rerun loop, and detailed case-specific checklists — and its reference structure is well designed. It is dragged down by fourfold repetition of the 'no simple edits' rule and by the fact that all seven referenced reference files are missing from the bundle, leaving the detailed executable guidance unavailable.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'no simple edits' mandate, which is stated four times in the Triggers section and Rules list, into a single rule to save tokens without losing the point.
Ship the seven referenced references/*.md files (analyze-project.md, intake.md, authoring-plan.md, client-configuration.md, agentic-search.md, reference-document-links.md, validation.md) with the skill, or inline the critical commands they contain, since every step currently points to a file that is absent from the bundle.
Tighten the knowledge-route rules (catalog access, route selection, one-source rule), which span multiple long bullets and partially overlap, into one compact decision rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'no simple edits' mandate is restated four times ('must be invoked immediately... regardless of how simple the task appears', 'Do NOT skip this skill for "simple" declaration tasks', 'Always follow the full source-authoring workflow — even seemingly simple changes', 'Mandatory for ordinary .tsp edits — even a single ? change can be breaking'), and the opening paragraph plus Triggers section repeat the frontmatter description. It could be tightened noticeably without losing information. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance is present (the `tsp compile .` command, exact MCP tool names, the ordered Analyze→...→Validate pipeline, and an enumerated §6.2 Case 3 checklist), but the per-step executable detail is delegated to seven 'See [x.md](references/x.md)' files that are not present in the bundle, so key operational details are missing as shipped. Not score 2, since the body itself gives specific commands and specific direction rather than high-level hints. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear seven-step sequence with an overview pipeline line, explicit validation checkpoints ('Run validation MCP when available and always run tsp compile .'), a required ✅/❌ output checklist, and an explicit feedback loop ('Fix every ❌ and re-run until all checks pass, subject to the retry limit... report a blocker if errors remain'). This matches the anchor-5 example with validation, error recovery, and checklists; it clearly exceeds anchor 4's 'minor validation gaps'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The structure is genuinely good: an overview body with well-signaled, one-level-deep references organized in a per-step layout plus a Reference Files table with purposes. However, none of the seven referenced references/*.md files exist in the bundle, so the disclosure chain is broken in practice — more than the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4, but well above anchor 3's vaguely-signaled or inlined content. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |