Content
67%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 itself is a well-organized, actionable overview with a sensible validated workflow, and the reference architecture is exactly what progressive disclosure should look like on paper. The critical defect is that the bundle ships none of the referenced files — every pointer to `references/*.md` is broken in the actual skill package, so the detail content the body defers to does not exist.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced files (`references/cell-models.md`, `references/editor-patterns.md`, `references/editor-components.md`, `references/stylesheet-values.md`, `references/indent-layout-styles.md`, `references/aspect-model-stereotypes.md`) alongside SKILL.md, or inline the highest-value patterns (the minimal `ConceptEditorDeclaration` JSON template) if the bundle must stay single-file.
Fix the inconsistent reference path: the inspected-cell-layout pattern is cited as `references/editor-patterns/inspected-cell-layout.md` in one section but described as a pattern inside `references/editor-patterns.md` in the Reference Index — pick one location and use it consistently.
Add an explicit feedback loop after the validate step, e.g. 'If `mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems` reports problems, fix them and re-validate before proceeding', to close the workflow's error-recovery gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and directive — "Always use `CellModel_RefNodeList` for `0..n` or `1..n` children", "put the hint in the constant's `nullText` (not `text`)" — with little padding. Minor trimmable spots remain (the 'Loading companion skills' paragraph and some explanatory asides like spelling out that `editor` is a default aspect), placing it at the 4 anchor 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the fully lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: named tools (`mps_mcp_scaffold_editor`, `mps_mcp_print_node`, `mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems`), exact parameter names (`moduleName`, `type="component"`, `readOnly=true`), and precise rules for choosing cell models. It falls short of 5 because the copy-paste JSON blueprints are delegated to reference files rather than included, leaving minor gaps in what the body itself can execute. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Common Workflow' is a clear numbered 0–5 sequence (check model exists → scaffold → componentize → refine → inspect → validate) with both an inspection and a validation checkpoint. It misses 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery loop — nothing says what to do when `mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems` reports problems. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The in-file design is a well-signaled, one-level-deep reference structure (a 'Reference Index' with per-file purpose), but scored against the actual bundle: no `references/` directory exists, so every referenced path — `references/cell-models.md`, `references/editor-patterns.md`, `references/editor-components.md`, `references/stylesheet-values.md`, `references/indent-layout-styles.md`, `references/aspect-model-stereotypes.md` — is dangling, and one path is internally inconsistent (`references/editor-patterns/inspected-cell-layout.md` vs. the same pattern listed in `references/editor-patterns.md`). The promised detail content is unreachable, which the structure cannot compensate for; this is below the 3 anchor's 'could be better organized' and matches a broken/minimal reference scheme (2). | 2 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |