Content
77%Reviews 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, highly actionable validation workflow with strong domain-specific guidance. It loses points on conciseness (redundancy and rhetorical padding) and progressive disclosure (monolithic single-file layout with no bundle split).
Suggestions
State the read-only constraint once and remove the duplicate restatements in the intro and Section 6 to tighten the body.
Trim the rhetorical intro padding ('no mid-sprint design interruptions, no guessing, no ambiguous acceptance criteria') to pure procedural content.
Consider extracting the detailed Section 3 checklist into a reference file and summarizing it in SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient domain-specific procedure, but redundant — the read-only constraint is restated three times (intro, Section 6, 'It never edits') and the intro carries rhetorical padding ('no mid-sprint design interruptions, no guessing'), so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable: exact markers to scan ('UNRESOLVED', 'TBD', 'TODO', '?'), enumerated asset extensions, concrete per-verdict fix text (e.g., 'BLOCKED: ADR-NNNN is Proposed — wait for acceptance before implementing.'), and precise thresholds by story type. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear phased sequence (Phase 0 through Phase 8) where the checklist itself functions as explicit validation, with defined verdict logic and per-gap fix guidance forming an error-recovery loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the entire ~350-line checklist lives inline in a single monolithic file with detail that could be split out, though the external project-doc references that do exist (director-gates.md, gdd, manifest, tr-registry) are one-level-deep and clearly signaled. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |