Content
77%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.
A well-engineered workflow skill: crisp step sequencing, explicit validation gates, ratification and delta feedback loops, and mostly executable templates. Its main weaknesses are the total absence of progressive disclosure (all schema/grade material inlined in one file) and placeholder-riddled grader examples that keep it from being fully copy-paste ready.
Suggestions
Split the per-story-type grader YAML examples (ui-story, agentic-story, service-story) into reference files under references/ (e.g., references/graders-ui.md, references/graders-agentic.md, references/graders-service.md) and link to them from Step 3, keeping only the shared scenario table inline.
Replace literal '...' placeholders in grader examples (state_check query/expect, screenshot path) with one fully worked-out example per grader type so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
De-duplicate the expert-consultation rule by keeping it in the Step 2 instruction and trimming the redundant 'Hardcodear scenarios...' anti-pattern entry, and similarly fold the Step 8 checkpoint YAML into a compact template line to trim token overhead.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and efficient — tables ("| Tipo | Verifica | Ejemplo |"), terse commands ("cat docs/projects/active/PI-{N}/..."), and compact YAML blocks with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because of minor duplication: the expert-consultation rule appears twice ("NUNCA redactes scenarios sin haber consultado al expert (te ahorra reinventar invariantes)" and the anti-pattern "Hardcodear scenarios cuando expert skill define invariantes — leélo primero"), and the inline grader schema blocks for three story types pad length somewhat. It is well above the score-3 anchor's 'some unnecessary explanation'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is largely executable: literal bash bootstrap commands, a scenario-type table with examples, per-story-type grader YAML blocks, a concrete trial_policy block, and copy-paste output templates for Step 6 ("Spec draft v1 escrito... ¿Apruebas?") and Step 7. It is not a 5 because several grader examples contain literal placeholders ("query: '...'", "path: '...'", "rubric: docs/specs/rubrics/completeness.md" without showing how assertions are derived), leaving minor gaps the executor must fill. It is clearly above the score-3 pseudocode anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight explicitly sequenced steps with validation gates and feedback loops throughout: "Si 00-story.md no existe → escala /pm", "Si falta UNO → /po rechaza spec, no procede", the ratification loop ("editás 01-spec.md y story YAML → bump po_version → re-output. Loop hasta ratified_by_chris: true") with an explicit anti-pattern for abandoning it after one iteration, plus the UX delta loop for re-opening a ratified spec. This matches the score-5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, checklists); nothing material is missing. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill has no bundle files at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so everything — including ~40 lines of per-story-type grader schema examples, persona/rubric assignment policy, and trial policy — is inlined in a single ~180-line file. Section headers and clearly signaled input paths ("docs/specs/templates/01-spec-template.md") give it real structure, matching the score-3 anchor ('some structure... content that should be separate is inline'). It is not a 4 because the three grader-schema blocks and the scenario-template detail are reference material that belongs in separate files, and it cannot score 5 since there are no well-signaled one-level-deep bundle references at all. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |