Content
76%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 is an exceptionally lean, opinionated set of instructions with well-managed references and real bundle files backing them. Its main weakness is workflow presentation: the process lives in an unsegmented prose block with only implicit validation, and concrete deliverable structure is referenced but never exemplified.
Suggestions
Make the workflow sequence explicit with numbered steps (gather requirements → inspect stack → decide architecture → draft the design doc → emit Handoff Context) and add explicit validation checkpoints such as re-verifying integration contracts against the inspected code before finalizing.
Add section headings (e.g. '## Process', '## Output', '## References') so the dense prose block is navigable at a glance, completing the otherwise strong progressive-disclosure structure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~30 lines of dense imperative guidance with zero padding — no concept explanations, no library background — and every sentence carries a non-obvious instruction (e.g., "a known answer does not need another confirmation echo", "Continue to the next authorized workflow stage rather than stopping solely because a document exists"). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | As an instruction-only skill it has concrete anchors — the output path `docs/TechDesign-[AppName]-MVP.md`, the checklist of architecture facets ("component/service boundaries, data ownership, integration contracts, deployment target"), and the Handoff Context field list — but the core design process itself remains high-level direction with no example structure or worked instance, leaving minor gaps versus fully executable guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists in prose order (read requirements → inspect stack → describe architecture → record tradeoffs → emit Handoff Context → continue) but it is never made explicit: no numbered steps, no headings, and validation is only implied ("how the result will be checked", "Verify changing vendor details") rather than given as checkpoints. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Both referenced files (references/question-bank.md and references/cli-output.md) exist, are exactly one level deep, and are well signaled with descriptive link text and clear purpose ("This is a parser contract, not an optional prose template"); however the body itself has no section headers, leaving a minor organization gap against anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |