Content
86%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 well-structured, token-efficient instruction skill that keeps the system prompt small, points to one real reference for detail, and gives concrete parameters for the requirements/contract workflow with explicit validation gates.
Suggestions
Make the diagnostic-resolution feedback loop explicit in step 6 (run diagnostic → if errors, fix and re-run → only proceed when clean) to reach full workflow-clarity maturity.
Tighten the directional steps ("Research and write a concrete first draft", final reporting) into concrete, checkable actions.
Optionally surface the PRD/contract readiness checklist as a short bulleted checklist for the multi-file finalize step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: domain terms (PRD, artifact contract, BOM, PCB, CAD, user.ask) are used without padding or basic-concept explanation, and every line is actionable guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable with concrete specifics (exact user.ask purpose strings, exact source values, exact readiness conditions), but a few steps like "Research and write a concrete first draft" and the final reporting step are directional rather than copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear seven-step numbered sequence with an explicit readiness validation in step 6 and a repeat-loop in step 3, but the diagnostic-resolution step states "Resolve every... diagnostic" without spelling out the validate→fix→retry loop for error recovery. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview that offloads detailed file shapes, allowed values, and examples to a single well-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/product-files.md, verified present), with no nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |