Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a lean, well-structured workflow with strong validation checkpoints and clear navigation, scoring well on conciseness, workflow clarity, and progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is actionability, where several steps stay abstract rather than giving executable specifics.
Suggestions
Make asset-handling steps more actionable by naming concrete signals (e.g. how to detect reusable repo assets, or naming the available image-generation/icon tools) rather than 'Inventory every required asset'.
Tighten step 3-4 with a concrete fallback sequence (e.g. check package.json/framework, then scaffold) so the 'smallest runnable frontend' decision is less abstract.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts like React or frontend basics; every section (Preconditions, Workflow, Fidelity rules, Handoff) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It has concrete specifics (verify ~390 × 844, save design-qa.md, gate on 'final result: passed'), but many steps remain abstract direction ('Inventory every required asset', 'use its existing framework...conventions') without executable detail. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step numbered sequence includes an explicit validation gate (run design-qa, fix blocking mismatches, hand off only when 'final result: passed') plus a fix feedback loop, matching the anchor for explicit checkpoints and error recovery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-sectioned and references one-level-deep sibling files (../index/SKILL.md, ../design-qa/SKILL.md, ../../references/critical-overrides.md) that are clearly signaled inline; no bundle files exist to verify and none are nested. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |