Content
17%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 padded persona dump with no executable guidance, no validation steps, and a broken reference. It reads as auto-generated capability enumeration rather than an actionable skill.
Suggestions
Replace the capability/trait bullet lists with a concise overview and move detailed checklists into real reference files (and create the referenced implementation-playbook.md).
Add concrete, executable guidance such as sample Figma/Style Dictionary commands, a WCAG audit checklist, or a design-token naming template.
Provide a real workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., validate contrast ratios, test keyboard nav) and a validate-fix-retry feedback loop for accessibility audits.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~200 lines of capability/knowledge/trait bullet lists enumerating expertise Claude already has (Figma features, WCAG, design tokens), with heavy redundancy across Capabilities, Behavioral Traits, Knowledge Base, and Response Approach. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There is no code, commands, or concrete executable guidance anywhere; the Instructions ("Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") only describe rather than instruct. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered Response Approach sequence exists but its steps are abstract ("Research user needs", "Design systematically") with no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Capability lists that belong in separate reference files are inlined, and the sole reference ("resources/implementation-playbook.md") is a dangling path with no corresponding bundle file present. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 7 / 20 Passed |