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.
The body is a well-sequenced, actionable workflow with genuine validation checkpoints (pre-flight input check, permission gate before writing) and a concrete output template. Its main cost is the verbose justification of the NOT ASSESSED policy — anecdotes and aphorisms that a competent agent does not need to follow the rule. Condensing that section to its bare rules would make the skill lean without losing any behavior.
Suggestions
Compress the "Insufficient input" section to its operational rules (the 4-step FOUND/ABSENT check and the stop condition) and drop the justification prose — the "false clean passes" anecdote, "A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success", and the absence-of-evidence aphorism add ~15 lines without changing behavior.
Move the shared NOT ASSESSED/automation-mode policy to a referenced doc (as is already done for automation-modes.md and code-root-resolution.md) so report-producing skills don't each carry a copy inline.
Add one concrete anchor per Phase 1/2 step where guidance is currently high-level, e.g. which git-log command or time window counts as "recent changes".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The phases, scan targets, and template are lean, but the "Insufficient input" section spends significant tokens justifying the policy rather than stating it — e.g. "A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success", the "false clean passes" anecdote about the asset audit and the 16.67ms budget, and "Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence". This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not 2 because the padding is confined to one section and the rest is genuinely lean. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance dominates: exact scan targets per role ("scan design/narrative/ for world-building and story docs", "read production/session-state/active.md"), an exact permission question, an exact output path pattern ("onboard-[role]-[date].md"), and a full output template. Fits 'mostly executable guidance ... with minor gaps' — some steps remain high-level ("Read recent changes (git log if available)") and the template sections are placeholders, though placeholders are appropriate for a doc-generation skill; not 5 because a few steps (e.g. what the summary should draw from, how deep the scan goes) rely on Claude's judgment without concrete anchors. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five phases are clearly sequenced (load context → scan → generate → save → next steps) with explicit validation checkpoints: the mandatory pre-flight input check ("Check first, and stop if the check fails", FOUND/ABSENT recorded per input), the unresolved-code-root stop condition, and the ask-before-write gate ("Ask: 'May I write this to ...?'"). This matches 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps' and stops short of failure-prone territory. Not 4 because there is no real validation gap — every risky step (producing a report without data, writing a file) is gated. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single self-contained SKILL.md (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists) with well-organized phase sections, an inline markdown template that appropriately stays inline as the core deliverable, and pointed mentions of related project files (.claude/docs/automation-modes.md, code-root-resolution.md) and sibling skills (/sprint-status, /help) rather than duplicating them. Fits 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' — not 5 because the long "Insufficient input" policy block is general guidance that could live in a shared reference instead of every skill that produces reports. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |