Content
73%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.
A well-sequenced, highly actionable multi-phase workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops — workflow clarity is exemplary. Its weaknesses are repeated justifications of the NOT-ASSESSED transparency philosophy, inline SOLID primers, and an inlined ADR-reading pattern that is duplicated across sibling skills.
Suggestions
State the skipped-check transparency rationale once and reference it, rather than repeating it in the insufficient-input section, Phase 2, and the verdict rules.
Extract the ADR bounded-read pattern into a shared reference file (e.g. references/adr-reading.md) since /dev-story and /create-stories use the same pattern.
Provide a concrete method or command for hard-to-assess checklist items such as cyclomatic complexity and circular dependency detection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient project-specific guidance, but the skipped-check transparency rationale is repeated across sections ("a reader cannot tell from a green result", "the reader cannot tell engine guidance was never sought", "A skipped check that says nothing is indistinguishable from a check that passed"), and one-line SOLID primers ("Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change") re-teach concepts Claude already knows. Not 4 because several passages could be trimmed; not 2 because padding is localized and most content (null-migration semantics, verdict precedence) is non-obvious operational knowledge. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete executable commands ("git log --oneline -- [file]", "Grep pattern=\"^## \" path=\"[adr-file]\" output_mode=\"content\" -n"), file-extension routing (.gd, .cs, .gdshader, .hlsl), a copy-paste output template, and verbatim AskUserQuestion prompts and options. Not 5 because checklist items like "Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method" and "No circular dependencies between modules" specify the criterion but no method or command to check it. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Nine explicit phases in a clear order with pervasive validation checkpoints: the FOUND/ABSENT input pre-check before producing any report, VERIFIED/UNVERIFIED confidence tagging of every specialist finding, and first-match-wins verdict precedence. Feedback loops exist ("Fix the issues and re-run /code-review", fix the unreadable ADR reference) and Phases 4-6 provide checklists, matching the top anchor. Not 4 because checkpoints are explicit throughout rather than having only minor gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the body is well-sectioned into phases with project file references (.claude/docs/automation-modes.md, project.yaml, docs/architecture/[adr-file].md) clearly named and one level deep. Not 5 because the ADR bounded-read pattern is stated to be shared with /dev-story and /create-stories yet is fully inlined (~15 lines) instead of being extracted to a shared reference file; not 3 because structure and navigation are good, with most content appropriately placed inline for a run-time workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |