Content
70%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured architectural skill with strong workflow clarity and good progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete examples — a sample candidate presentation or before/after code snippet would significantly improve actionability. The glossary, while valuable for enforcing consistent vocabulary, could be tightened by removing definitions Claude already knows and focusing only on the project-specific meanings.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a presented deepening candidate (showing the Files/Problem/Solution/Benefits format with realistic content) to improve actionability.
Trim the glossary to only project-specific meanings — remove or compress entries like 'Implementation' and 'Adapter' that Claude already understands, keeping only the nuanced definitions (depth, deletion test, locality).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The glossary section is somewhat verbose — Claude already understands concepts like interfaces, implementations, and adapters. However, the specific definitions (e.g., 'depth as leverage,' 'deletion test') add genuine value as project-specific vocabulary. Some tightening is possible (e.g., the glossary preamble, the 'Key principles' bridge text). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear process with concrete steps (explore, present candidates, grilling loop) and specific heuristics (deletion test, shallow module detection). However, it lacks executable examples — no sample output format for candidates, no example of what a deepening opportunity looks like when presented, and no concrete code snippets showing before/after patterns. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-phase workflow (Explore → Present candidates → Grilling loop) is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: the user must choose a candidate before proceeding, side effects are enumerated with clear triggers, and there are feedback loops (grilling conversation, ADR offers on rejection, CONTEXT.md updates inline). The 'Do NOT propose interfaces yet' gate is a good validation checkpoint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-structured with clear references to supporting files (LANGUAGE.md, CONTEXT-FORMAT.md, ADR-FORMAT.md, INTERFACE-DESIGN.md) that are one level deep and clearly signaled. The SKILL.md serves as an overview with appropriate pointers to detailed materials. Each reference is contextually placed where the reader would need it. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |