Content
63%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, highly actionable tutorial script: concrete CLI commands, complete artifact templates, explicit pause points, and thoughtful fallbacks for scope and early exits. Its weaknesses are duplication (the command reference table appears twice), the absence of an explicit verification phase before archiving, and a monolithic ~550-line structure with no progressive disclosure into reference files despite sizable inline reference material.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the command reference table — keep it in one place (or move it to references/commands.md) and reference it from both the recap and the graceful-exit section.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint between Phase 9 (Apply) and Phase 10 (Archive), e.g., running '/opsx:verify <name>' or re-reading specs to confirm the implementation matches before archiving.
Move the stable artifact format templates (proposal, spec WHEN/THEN format, design, tasks) into a references/ file (e.g., references/artifact-templates.md) and keep only one inline example each, shrinking SKILL.md to the workflow itself.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient — the scripted dialog templates are load-bearing for a teaching skill and it doesn't explain concepts Claude already knows — but it could be tightened: the command reference table appears verbatim twice (Phase 11 recap and the 'Graceful Exit' section), and the ASCII diagram placeholder box plus long verbatim display blocks add padding. Fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not a 2 because there is no generic-concept explanation, not a 4 because the duplication and dialog bulk exceed minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, runnable commands appear throughout ('openspec status --json 2>&1 || echo "NOT_INITIALIZED"', 'openspec new change "<derived-name>"', 'mkdir -p openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability-name>', 'git log --oneline -10'), and the artifact templates (WHEN/THEN/AND spec format, checkbox tasks format) are complete. Minor gaps remain — artifact saves are described as 'write the content to openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md' rather than given as a command, and names must be derived — so it fits 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' rather than the fully copy-paste-ready 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eleven phases are explicitly sequenced with a preflight check and fallback, PAUSE checkpoints at key transitions, a scope guardrail with user-override, and graceful exit paths; verification is embedded via the '## 2. Verify' task category and the command table. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit verify step between implementation (Phase 9) and archive (Phase 10) — '/opsx:verify' is only mentioned in a table — and not a 3 because checkpoints and fallbacks are largely explicit rather than implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent) and the body contains no references — a ~550-line monolith with the command table, artifact format templates, and exit-handling dialog all inline, and the command table duplicated. Section structure per phase is good, but content that clearly belongs in separate files (command reference, artifact templates) is inlined, fitting 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'; not a 2 because headers and navigation within the file are strong, not a 4 because there are no references at all and the simple-skill exception (<50 lines) does not apply. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |