Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with concrete prompts, paths, and checkpoints, and it is well-organized as a self-contained skill. Its main weakness is verbosity from repeating the long recommended-path block across routing cases A, B, and C.
Suggestions
Factor the repeated Concept/Architecture/Pre-Production/Production path into a single shared block and note only the per-case deltas (e.g. A uses '/brainstorm open', B uses '/brainstorm [hint]'), to cut roughly 100 lines of duplication.
Consider moving the full recommended path for each route into a one-level-deep reference (e.g. references/paths.md) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is procedural instruction that assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining known concepts, but it repeats the near-identical Concept/Architecture/Pre-Production/Production path verbatim across cases A, B, and C (~50 lines each), which is token-inefficient padding that could be tightened via shared path blocks. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: exact AskUserQuestion prompts and option strings, exact file paths, exact glob patterns, and exact values to write ('Full' -> write 'full'); it is copy-paste ready with no pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-phase sequence is clearly ordered with explicit checkpoints ('Wait for the user's selection. Do not proceed until they respond.', 'Never auto-run the next skill'), and write operations include a reasoned validation stance rather than a gap; edge cases are enumerated. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the skill is self-contained; per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no external references can score 3, and the content is clearly sectioned under distinct headers. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |