Content
67%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 a well-structured orchestration playbook with a genuinely actionable plan template, clear pass sequencing, and gated checkpoints, and it correctly delegates heavy detail to subskills. Its main costs are verbatim rule duplication across sections, missing concrete compile/test verification commands, and a fragile out-of-bundle reference that breaks progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the repeated stability rules: state 'compile + tests green, update API usages in the same CL' once (e.g., in Critical Constraints) and reference it from the philosophy list instead of restating it as items 8-9.
Add concrete verification steps and an error-recovery loop to the lifecycle (e.g., the exact build/test command per pass, and 'if tests fail, fix within the pass before staging') so validation is an executed step, not just a stated constraint.
Fix the ui_engineering.md reference path (currently '../../../docs/ui_engineering.md', three levels outside the bundle) — either move it into a references/ file within the skill or inline the relevant principles, and drop filler lines like 'Pay extra attention not to skip this step'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and directive with no concept-explaining padding, but whole rules are duplicated: 'Strict Intermediate Stability' appears as both Critical Constraint #2 and Philosophy item #8 (nearly verbatim), Constraint #1 overlaps item #8's API-update rule, and 'Pay extra attention not to skip this step' is pure filler. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' better than 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed', since entire numbered items repeat. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: a copy-ready structured plan template, exact subskill assignments per pass, and explicit Option A/B ordering criteria with decision conditions. It falls short of 5 because there are no concrete verification commands (how to compile, which test commands to run) to confirm 'tests must pass after each step', and short of pseudocode-level gaps that define 3. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The lifecycle is clearly sequenced (Plan Generation gated on user acceptance, then Baseline Scaffolding, Logic Consolidation, Lit Rendering, Widget Promotion) with explicit trigger conditions acting as checkpoints between passes. Not 5: there is no feedback loop or error-recovery step stating what to do when a pass's tests fail or the plan is rejected, so validation is asserted as a constraint rather than an explicit workflow step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is good, per-pass detail is appropriately delegated to named subskills ('component mapping rules defined inside the subskill'), and the plan template belongs inline. Not 5: the only external reference, ui_engineering.md at '../../../docs/ui_engineering.md', points three directory levels outside the skill bundle (fragile, unverifiable), and no references/ or scripts/ bundle exists to absorb supporting material. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |