Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a compact, well-organized design-system spec with concrete tokens and a clear authoring workflow. Its main gaps are the absence of a worked guideline example and validation checkpoints embedded directly in the workflow.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example showing a finished component rule in the required output structure.
Embed explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoints inside the Guideline Authoring Workflow steps rather than only in the separate Quality Gates section.
Consider offloading the detailed Component Rule Expectations and Required Output Structure into a reference file to keep SKILL.md a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and opinionated — exact tokens, scales, and bulleted directives with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete tokens (#F237A1), type/spacing scales, required states, and an output-structure template are actionable, but no worked example of a finished guideline is provided to model from. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step Guideline Authoring Workflow is clearly sequenced, but validation checkpoints live in separate Quality Gates/QA-checklist sections rather than embedded validate-then-proceed loops within the steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is well-sectioned, but at roughly 75 lines it is entirely inline with no reference offloading and exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |