Content
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured architectural skill with excellent workflow clarity and progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is the glossary section, which explains concepts Claude likely already understands (though the specific vocabulary constraints add value), and the lack of concrete examples showing what a deepening opportunity candidate looks like in practice. The three-phase process with explicit gates and side-effect triggers is a strong design.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a deepening opportunity candidate (files, problem, solution, benefits) to make the expected output format unambiguous and boost actionability.
Trim the glossary to only project-specific definitions (depth, seam, deletion test, locality, leverage) and drop standard terms like 'module,' 'interface,' and 'implementation' that Claude already knows — or reduce them to one-line reminders of the specific meaning intended here.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The glossary section is somewhat verbose — Claude already understands concepts like interfaces, implementations, and adapters. However, the specific definitions (e.g., 'depth as leverage,' 'deletion test') add genuine value as project-specific vocabulary. Some tightening is possible (e.g., the 'Key principles' preamble, the explanatory sentence about domain models). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear process with concrete steps (explore, present candidates, grilling loop) and specific heuristics (deletion test, shallow module detection). However, it lacks executable code examples, concrete output formats for the candidate list, or a worked example showing what a deepening opportunity looks like in practice. The guidance is specific but not copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-phase workflow (Explore → Present candidates → Grilling loop) is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: the user must choose a candidate before proceeding, side effects are enumerated with clear triggers, and there's a feedback loop in the grilling phase. The 'Do NOT propose interfaces yet' constraint is a well-placed gate. ADR conflict handling includes a clear decision rule. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-structured with clear references to supporting files (LANGUAGE.md, CONTEXT-FORMAT.md, ADR-FORMAT.md, INTERFACE-DESIGN.md) that are one level deep and clearly signaled. The SKILL.md serves as an overview with appropriate pointers. However, since no bundle files were provided, we can't verify the referenced files exist, but the structure itself is exemplary. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |