Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with strong progressive disclosure and a clear workflow outline. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (some sections restate obvious behaviors) and insufficient actionability — the inline examples are too brief to be fully executable, and the workflow lacks concrete validation/feedback loops. The reference table pattern is a notable strength.
Suggestions
Add explicit feedback loops to the workflow, e.g., 'If stakeholder identifies gaps during Validate, return to Interview step' and 'Review EARS requirements against checklist before presenting to stakeholder.'
Expand the inline EARS and acceptance criteria examples into a complete mini worked example showing one feature going through the full pipeline (discovery question → requirement → acceptance criterion → TODO item) so Claude has a concrete end-to-end model.
Trim the 'When to Use This Skill' section and the role definition preamble — these largely duplicate the skill description and don't add actionable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary framing (e.g., 'Requirements specialist conducting structured workshops' role definition, the 'When to Use This Skill' section largely restates the description). The MUST DO/MUST NOT DO lists contain some items Claude would naturally handle (e.g., 'Ask for clarification on ambiguous requirements'). However, the reference table and inline examples are well-structured and earn their tokens. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear workflow and references to external files, but the core SKILL.md itself lacks fully concrete, executable guidance. The EARS and acceptance criteria examples are brief inline snippets rather than complete worked examples. The workflow steps describe what to do at a high level ('Use AskUserQuestions to understand the feature goal') but don't show exactly how to structure those interactions or what the output should look like in detail. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow (Discover → Interview → Document → Validate → Plan) is clearly sequenced and logical. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops — for instance, no step says 'if requirements are ambiguous after interview, loop back to step 2' or 'validate EARS syntax before proceeding to acceptance criteria.' The Validate step exists but lacks detail on what to do if validation fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent use of a reference table with clear 'Load When' conditions for each supporting file. The SKILL.md serves as a concise overview with inline examples for quick reference while pointing to detailed guidance in well-organized reference files. Navigation is one level deep and clearly signaled. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |