An exemplary orchestration skill: fully executable commands and prompts, explicitly sequenced phases with validation checkpoints and feedback loops, and deliberate context management (receipts, delegated gate files). Its weaknesses are verbosity — several blockquote essays justifying the skill's own design decisions rather than instructing — and inline bulk (the specialist domain table, output templates) that would sit better in reference files.

Suggestions

Trim or relocate the rationale blockquotes (the 'N is not 8' essay, the NOT ASSESSED justification, the delta re-review history) into a short design-notes reference file, keeping only the operative rule inline — and remove the Phase 5 repetition of the Phase 1 delta-review rationale.

Move the ~20-row domain-to-specialist table to a reference file (it is only needed in full mode) so lean/solo runs do not carry it.

Move the verbatim review-log entry format and the Phase 4 output template into reference files loaded only at output time, shrinking the always-loaded body.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The bulk is dense, actionable instruction with no basic-concept padding, but several multi-paragraph rationale blockquotes ('N is not 8 unless workflow: full', the NOT ASSESSED justification, the delta re-review explanation — repeated again in Phase 5) explain why the skill's rules exist rather than what to do. Not 4 because the over-explanation exceeds minor trimming; not 2 because most of the file earns its place.	3 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable throughout: exact commands ('bash .claude/scripts/review-receipts.sh check "design/gdd/reviews/[doc-name]-review-log.md" ...'), Grep patterns with flags specified exactly ('-A 6', '-B 8' with reasons), verbatim AskUserQuestion prompts and option strings, and complete copy-paste-ready output and review-log templates.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Phases 0-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (freshness-receipt check, gdd-structure-check.sh, dependency-graph existence checks, spot-reads of possibly-empty headings), feedback loops (escalate to full re-review on registry conflict; re-review after revisions), and a REQUIRED/ADVISORY checklist — matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear phase structure; detailed gate definitions are delegated to per-gate files the subagent reads ('do not read it in the parent session') and project doc references are one level deep and clearly signaled. Not 5 because the ~20-row specialist domain table and the output/log-format templates are inlined in a 420-line file though only needed in specific modes or at output time; not 3 because most content is appropriately placed and references are clearly signaled.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A solid, specific description that names the domain, four concrete review dimensions, and an explicit when-trigger. Its main gaps are missing synonyms (GDD, design doc, spec) and no mention of what the skill produces (a structured verdict and review log). It scores at anchor 4 across all dimensions: clearly above midpoint, just short of comprehensive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when a design doc (GDD/spec) is finished and needs review before implementation.'

Include the natural synonyms users would say — 'GDD', 'design doc', 'spec' — alongside 'design document'.

Mention the concrete output the skill produces (structured review report with APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION verdict and review-log entry) so the capability list is comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and four concrete review dimensions ('completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and design standards') plus a timing cue ('Before handing to programmers'). Not 5 because it omits key capabilities (structured verdict output, specialist-agent delegation, review logging); not 3 because it lists several specific actions, not just 1-2.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is explicit ('Reviews one design document for completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and design standards') and the 'when' is present ('Before handing to programmers'), so the missing-trigger cap does not apply. Not 5 because the when-clause is a single terse scenario rather than a full set of concrete trigger phrases.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'design document', 'review', 'design standards', and 'Before handing to programmers' map to natural user phrasings. Not 5 because obvious synonyms a user would say — 'GDD', 'design doc', 'spec' — are absent; not 3 because keyword coverage is good, not merely 'some relevant'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Reviews one design document' carves a clear niche distinct from code review or general file processing, with a distinct handoff trigger ('Before handing to programmers'). Not 5 because the generic phrase 'design document' has minor overlap risk with closely related design-pipeline review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
Path: .claude/skills/design-review/SKILL.md
Commit: b21fa0f

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.