Content
75%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.
A dense, well-structured instruction skill with a clear phased workflow, concrete file/ID conventions, and a real template bundle behind it. The main deductions are duplicated checklist content, a few undefined jargon directives ('Actionable State', 'implementation-readiness'), and two reference-hygiene issues (one orphan file, one non-resolving external path).
Suggestions
Define 'Actionable State' in the Discovery phase (or drop the term) and specify what to do when the linked BRD objective or docs/brd/brd-[slug].md is missing, so the workflow's exit condition and error path are explicit.
Remove the inlined 'Verification Checklist' section and point to references/checklist.md instead (or vice versa) to eliminate the duplication counted against both conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Fix reference hygiene: either reference references/lean-spec-template.md from the body (e.g. as the handoff format for engineering) or remove it, and correct or conditionally gate the '../common-software-requirements/references/requirements-standards-baseline.md' link that does not resolve within this bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is telegraphic and assumes competence (e.g. 'No Vagueness: "Fast" -> "Load < 200ms"'), with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Falls short of 5 due to redundancy: the inlined 'Verification Checklist' duplicates references/checklist.md, ownership rules appear in two sections, and the 'Canonical response anchors' tail adds little. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout — specific paths ('docs/prd/prd-[slug].md', 'references/prd-template.md'), ID conventions ('REQ-*', 'AC-*'), Given/When/Then for ACs, and a worked question example ('Target platform? a) Web b) Mobile c) Both'). Not 5 because some directives dangle without definition: 'INVEST self-check', 'route through implementation-readiness', and 'Actionable State' are referenced but never explained. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Discovery → Drafting → Verification sequence with a repeat-until-Actionable-State loop and a mandatory verification checklist plus an implementation gate. Not 5: 'Actionable State' is never defined, and there is no recovery path when the linked BRD objective is missing — checkpoints exist but error feedback loops are implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with a dedicated References section pointing one level deep to real files (references/prd-template.md, references/checklist.md both exist). Not 5: references/lean-spec-template.md is an orphan (never referenced from the body), and '../common-software-requirements/references/requirements-standards-baseline.md' does not resolve — a dangling cross-skill reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |