Content
56%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a well-structured conceptual framework for multi-agent design review with clear role boundaries and a gated process. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete, actionable artifacts (no Decision Log template, no example review cycle, no prompt templates) and moderate verbosity from redundant summary sections. The workflow is logically sound with good exit criteria, but the skill would benefit significantly from executable examples and better progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Add a concrete Decision Log template (e.g., a markdown table with columns for Decision, Alternatives, Objections, Resolution) so Claude knows exactly what artifact to produce.
Include a worked example showing one complete review cycle — a mini design, one reviewer's feedback, the designer's response, and the updated Decision Log entry.
Provide specific prompt templates for each agent role beyond the single Skeptic hint, so Claude can reliably adopt each persona.
Remove or consolidate the redundant 'Key Principles', 'Failure Modes', and 'Final Reminder' sections — these restate content already covered in the operating model and exit criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill has significant redundancy — the 'Key Principles' section restates what was already covered, the 'Failure Modes This Skill Prevents' is a bullet list of things already implied, and the 'Purpose' section over-explains motivation. The 'Final Reminder' and 'When to Use' sections add little value. However, the role definitions and process phases are reasonably tight for the complexity of the topic. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear conceptual framework with defined roles and phases, but lacks concrete executable guidance. There are no code examples, no prompt templates (only one vague prompting hint for the Skeptic), no Decision Log template/schema, and no example of what a review cycle actually looks like in practice. The instruction to 'run the standard brainstorming skill' assumes that exists but doesn't clarify the interface. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-phase process is clearly sequenced with explicit ordering of reviewer agents and a well-defined exit criteria checklist that serves as a validation gate. The requirement that all exit criteria must be met before proceeding is a good feedback loop. However, there's no explicit validation step within the review loop itself (e.g., how to verify objections are properly scoped), and the transition between phases could be more precisely defined. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is structured with clear headers and sections, which is good. However, at ~200 lines this skill is somewhat monolithic — the detailed role definitions, the Decision Log format, and example prompts/templates could be split into referenced files. There are no bundle files and no references to external documents except the vague mention of a 'brainstorming skill'. The content would benefit from a concise overview with role details in a separate reference. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |