Content
78%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 highly actionable with complete CLI commands and templates, and the workflow is well-sequenced with confirmation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are redundancy of the L-N. numbering rules across sections and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure to reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the L-N. title-numbering rules into one section and have Execution Order, Phase 4, Phase 5, and the sequenced-project flow reference it, eliminating the repeated restatements.
Move the filled-in Bug/Feature/Enabler templates and the "Adding issues to a sequenced project" renumbering procedure into reference files (e.g. TEMPLATES.md, SEQUENCING.md) linked from SKILL.md to enable progressive disclosure.
Add a post-creation verification step (e.g. re-fetch the issue with `linear issue view` to confirm title, labels, status, and relationships applied correctly) to close the workflow's validation loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient operational guidance with concrete commands and templates, but the L-N. title-numbering rules are restated across the Execution Order, Phase 4, Phase 5, and "Adding issues to a sequenced project" sections, creating trimmable redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready CLI commands (linear issue create with complete flags, mktemp description-file pattern, save_issue relationship examples) and filled-in markdown templates cover the common create/improve cases concretely. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Phase 1–5 sequence with explicit confirmation checkpoints ("Let them adjust before you create anything", show renumber diff before changing titles) and a collision-avoidance feedback detail (renumber in descending N order), though it lacks automated verification that creation succeeded or error-recovery if a CLI command fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections but monolithic at ~460 lines with no bundle files or one-level-deep references; templates and the renumbering procedure are inlined and the L-N. rules are repeated rather than split out, fitting "some structure but could be better organized." | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |