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.
The content is a tight, well-structured instruction set that assumes Claude's competence and appropriately pushes detail into two clearly linked reference files. The main weakness is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints, though the non-destructive nature of PRD writing limits that risk.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean prose with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every paragraph carries actionable instruction, matching the 5 anchor (lean, assumes competence, every token earns its place). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is provided: an explicit output path ('docs/PRD-[AppName]-MVP.md'), a named content checklist (target user, problem, journey, MVP scope, out-of-scope, failure states, constraints, acceptance criteria), and a Handoff Context field list. It is mostly executable for an instruction-only skill but stops short of copy-paste-ready templates, fitting the 4 anchor rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear logical sequence is present (reuse known answers, ask only unresolved requirements, write a proportional PRD, end with Handoff Context, continue into technical design if requested) with a soft checkpoint ('make reversible assumptions explicit and continue when the brief is sufficient'). It does not reach 5 because there are no explicit validate/verify checkpoints, but the task is non-destructive document writing so the gap is minor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that defers detail to two real, one-level-deep references (references/question-bank.md and references/cli-output.md), both clearly signaled with markdown links, matching the 5 anchor for clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |