Content
80%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 disciplined, token-efficient instruction skill with excellent progressive disclosure: an imperative overview, concrete coverage and handoff checklists, and two conditional, purpose-labeled references. Its weaknesses are the implicit, prose-based workflow ordering and the absence of any worked example or template that would make the output format fully concrete.
Suggestions
Make the sequence explicit as a short ordered list (gather known context → resolve open scope questions → draft PRD → emit Handoff Context → optionally continue to design) so the workflow order is unambiguous.
Add a validation checkpoint such as re-reading each acceptance criterion to confirm it is observable, and confirming every assumption is labeled before finishing.
Include a minimal PRD skeleton or one example of an observable acceptance criterion to make the output shape concrete rather than inferred.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative with zero padding — it never explains what a PRD is and every sentence carries project-specific guidance Claude cannot infer ('Use the manifest's configured PRD path or docs/PRD-[AppName]-MVP.md', 'Do not present planned acceptance checks as executed evidence'). Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, instruction-only guidance: an explicit coverage checklist ('target user and problem, the core journey, MVP scope, out-of-scope work, meaningful failure states, constraints, and observable acceptance criteria'), an exact output path pattern, and an enumerated Handoff Context field list. It stops short of level 5 because no PRD skeleton or example acceptance criterion is given, leaving the document's concrete shape and the 'observable' standard to inference. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A sequence exists (gather known context, ask only unresolved requirements, draft the PRD, emit Handoff Context, optionally continue into technical design) but it is embedded in prose paragraphs rather than explicit ordered steps, and there are no validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying criteria are observable or assumptions are labeled). This matches 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit', and the operation is not destructive/batch so no hard cap applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with two well-signaled, one-level-deep references that both exist in the bundle, each with a clear purpose and even usage conditions ('For a guided interview with unresolved requirements' and 'This is a parser contract, not an optional prose template'). This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |