Content
65%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 body is a well-structured knowledge index: lean per-technology principles and an excellent, verified one-level-deep reference system. Weaknesses are the implicit (never explicitly sequenced) workflow and a mid-level of actionability where many principles name a standard without the details needed to apply it, plus minor token waste from a duplicated description line and a boilerplate "When to Use" section.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered workflow near the top (1. Check .claude/apple-design-context.md for existing decisions, 2. Identify the technology via the Questions to Ask, 3. Read the matching references/<technology>.md file, 4. Produce the Output Format checklist) so the operating sequence is not left implicit.
Either delete the boilerplate "When to Use" section and the duplicated description line, or replace them with real trigger conditions for when this skill applies versus the listed related skills (hig-inputs, hig-components-system, hig-components-status).
In the Key Principles, replace standard-naming abstractions ("Standard Apple Pay button styles", "guided flows") with one concrete instance each (e.g., the actual button variant rule or a pointer to the specific section of the reference file) so the overview is actionable without a reference round-trip.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Each technology gets a compressed 1-2 line principle (e.g., "Only permitted app types: audio, messaging, EV charging, navigation, parking, quick food ordering"), which is lean for a 28-technology survey. Minor waste prevents a 5: the description is repeated verbatim in the body, the "When to Use" section is empty boilerplate ("applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview"), and the attribution footer adds tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Some principles are concretely directive ("Never ask for card details when Apple Pay is available", "Test entirely with VoiceOver enabled", the permitted CarPlay app-type list), but many are abstract abstractions naming a standard without the specifics needed to act ("Standard Apple Pay button styles", "Transparent and frictionless", "Invisible and reliable sync"), with details deferred to the reference files. This lands on anchor 3: some concrete guidance but incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The intended flow (check the context file, ask the "Questions to Ask", look up the technology in the reference index, produce the "Output Format") is implicit across sections but never explicitly sequenced, and there are no checkpoints. Not a destructive/batch skill so no cap applies, but at ~125 lines with 28 references it does not qualify for the simple-skill exception; anchor 3 (implicit sequence, missing checkpoints) fits better than anchor 2 because the Output Format, Questions, and Reference Index sections give usable structure. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a true overview: distilled per-technology principles plus a well-labeled Reference Index table giving topic and key content for every reference. All 28 referenced files (siri.md through photo-editing.md) exist in ./references/ and are exactly one level deep with no nested references, matching the anchor 5 pattern of a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |