Content
88%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 is a lean, well-sequenced workflow with explicit QA validation and feedback loops, and it appropriately delegates detail to referenced skills. Minor gaps: actionable specifics mostly live in external skill references, and reference navigation could be more explicit.
Suggestions
Add a short "References" section grouping the cross-skill links (index, critical-overrides, user-context, design-qa) so navigation is explicit rather than buried in prose.
Inline one or two concrete commands (e.g., the actual preview/dev command pattern) to raise actionability without bloating the overview.
Clarify the re-verify feedback loop after fixing mismatches (e.g., 're-run design-qa until it passes') to make the recovery cycle explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: tight numbered steps, bullets, and guardrails with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every sentence carries instructional weight. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance abounds ("verify around 390 × 844", "run `../design-qa/SKILL.md`", "Save `design-qa.md`... records `final result: passed`"), but it delegates most executable detail to referenced skills rather than providing copy-paste-ready commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step sequence with an explicit validation gate (design-qa must record `final result: passed`), a fix-and-reverify feedback loop, and a step-1 inspection checklist for error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Preconditions, Workflow, Fidelity rules, and Handoff with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to sibling skills, but references are inline in prose rather than gathered in a dedicated navigation section. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |