Content
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides strong actionable guidance with a concrete dependency format, useful example, and a complete plan template that agents can follow. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity with redundant sections (principles echoing process steps, duplicate clarification steps), a numbering error in the workflow, and a monolithic structure that would benefit from extracting the template into a separate file. Overall it's a solid skill that could be tightened for better token efficiency and clearer sequencing.
Suggestions
Fix the duplicate step numbering (two step 4s) and consolidate the redundant clarification steps (1a and 3) into a single, clearly positioned step with conditional triggers.
Extract the Plan Template into a separate referenced file (e.g., PLAN_TEMPLATE.md) to reduce the main skill's token footprint and improve progressive disclosure.
Remove the Core Principles section or merge it into the Process steps, since principles like 'Explore Codebase' and 'Ask Questions' are already covered in the numbered workflow steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy—step 3 (stop and request user input) largely repeats step 1a, the core principles section overlaps with the process steps, and the plan template is quite lengthy. Some trimming would improve token efficiency without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a concrete task dependency format with a clear example, a complete plan template with specific fields (depends_on, validation, status, log), a parallel execution wave table, and a specific subagent review prompt. This is copy-paste ready guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (Research → Documentation → Clarify → Plan → Save → Review), and includes a feedback loop via subagent review. However, there are two steps labeled '4' (Create Plan and Save Plan), step 1a's conditional logic is somewhat ambiguous, and there's no explicit validation checkpoint for the plan itself beyond the subagent review—e.g., no checklist to verify all dependencies are satisfied before saving. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and headers, but the lengthy plan template could be extracted to a separate file. With no bundle files, everything is inline in a single document that runs quite long. The template section alone accounts for a large portion of the content and would benefit from being a referenced file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |