Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is well-structured and concise, providing a clear workflow for TAPD ticket development. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete, executable examples for MCP calls and missing validation/error handling steps for API operations. The progressive disclosure is excellent with clear references to supporting documentation.
Suggestions
Add concrete MCP call examples with actual parameters, e.g., `stories_get(workspace_id='12345678', id='1012345678001234567')`
Include error handling guidance for failed MCP calls (what to do if stories_get returns empty or errors)
Remove the duplicate '可用资源' section at the end of the file
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Content is lean and efficient, using numbered steps and bullet points without unnecessary explanation. No verbose descriptions of what TAPD is or how MCP works - assumes Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear workflow steps but lacks executable code examples. The git command and regex pattern are concrete, but MCP calls are referenced abstractly without showing actual call syntax or parameters. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced with a blocking validation step, but lacks explicit validation checkpoints after MCP calls or error handling for failed API responses. The 'wait for user confirmation' is good but no feedback loop for failures. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to detailed materials (branch-workflow.md, dev-plan-template.md, mcp-calls.md, tapd-mcp-guide.md). Content is appropriately split between overview and reference files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |