Content
63%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 a well-organized, actionable consultation skill with concrete decision frameworks, an anti-pattern table, and worked examples. Its main weaknesses are moderate redundancy, and 'Required Reading' references to docs/*.md files that are not actually bundled.
Suggestions
Remove the redundant Glass/content-layer restatement and the 'When to Use' list that duplicates the description, and trim 'Your Expertise' of concepts Claude already knows, to lift conciseness.
Either ship the six referenced docs/*.md files or drop the 'Required Reading' section so references are not dangling.
Add 1-2 explicit feedback/checklist checkpoints (e.g., 're-evaluate against anti-pattern table before finalizing') to push workflow clarity toward 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly purposeful but carries redundancy — the Glass/content layer split appears in both 'Glass Decisions' and 'Core Principles > Hierarchy Through Layers', 'When to Use' duplicates the description, and 'Your Expertise' lists concepts Claude already knows (HIG, visual hierarchy). Not a 4 because several sections could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete decision rules ('Is it navigation or a control? → Use glass'), an anti-pattern table with fixes, and example consultations with specific answers including real API (ToolbarItem(placement: .topBarTrailing)). Not a 5 because some guidance stays at the rule-of-thumb level rather than fully exhaustive coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'How to Respond' section gives a clear 5-step sequenced approach and the Decision Frameworks are well-structured decision trees; no destructive/batch operations so the validation cap does not apply. Not a 5 because there are no explicit error-recovery/feedback checkpoints. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned and references are one-level deep with per-file descriptions, but the six referenced docs/*.md files do not exist (no bundle files present) — scored against the actual empty bundle structure per the guideline, these are dangling references, and much detail is inlined in the overview. Not a 2 because the structure and signaling are genuinely good; not a 4 because the referenced files are absent. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |