Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-organized, and actionable with concrete field names and a clear execution sequence. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validation checkpoint between writing the registry and reporting completion.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step between writing .atl/skill-registry.md and reporting results (e.g. verify the file exists and skill count matches the scan) to strengthen the workflow.
Confirm the two References paths (docs/skill-style-guide.md, skills/_shared/skill-resolver.md) exist in the bundle or mark them as external repo paths to avoid dead references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-structured with no concept explanations or padding; every section (Hard Rules, Decision Gates, Execution Steps, Output Contract) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Execution Steps give concrete, specific guidance with exact keys and paths (topic_key, capture_prompt, .atl/skill-registry.md); as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence is present with a Decision Gates table for branching, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint confirming the registry was written correctly before reporting success. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with clearly organized sections and two clearly signaled, one-level-deep references, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for level 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |