Content
66%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 provides a clear, well-sequenced spec workflow with concrete templates and explicit confirmation checkpoints, and organizes sibling-skill references cleanly. Its main weakness is redundant trigger/decision guidance repeated across three sections that inflates token use.
Suggestions
Merge 'When to use this skill' and 'Decision rule' into the 'Activation Contract' to eliminate the triplicated use/skip guidance.
Add a concrete template or skeleton for the design phase (e.g., section headings for architecture/data model/API/testing) so design.md guidance is as actionable as the requirements and tasks phases.
Add an explicit verification/validation checkpoint in Phase 4: Execution (e.g., confirm each task's requirement is satisfied before marking it complete).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is reasonably efficient but repeats the use/skip guidance across 'Activation Contract', 'When to use this skill', and 'Decision rule' sections, adding padding that could be consolidated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete EARS templates, file paths (specs/<spec_name>/requirements.md), and task-format examples give executable guidance, though the design phase relies on prose ('describe architecture') rather than a template. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four phases are clearly sequenced with explicit confirmation checkpoints between requirements, design, and tasks; the destructive/batch cap is avoided since it mandates user confirmation, though explicit validation steps are lighter than ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with sibling-skill references one level deep (../ui-design/SKILL.md, ../data-model-creation/SKILL.md); no bundle files exist, but the structure is appropriately split and navigable. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |