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 dense, highly actionable set of forwarding instructions with concrete lenses, ordering, field passthrough, and output shape. Its main weaknesses are presentation — a single run-on paragraph with nested caveats — rather than a lack of substance.
Suggestions
Break the run-on paragraph into short labeled steps or a checklist (e.g., '1. Invoke bmad-review...', '2. Pass through resolved fields...', '3. Present findings...') to lift workflow clarity.
Pull the list of [workflow] fields into a bulleted list so the passthrough rule is scannable rather than buried mid-sentence.
Consider an explicit verification checkpoint (e.g., confirm both lenses ran and only resolved fields were forwarded) before presenting the legacy-shaped output.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | It assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining basic concepts, but the single run-on paragraph with nested caveat asides (e.g., "but only those that resolved to something, since an empty value here means...") could be tightened, matching the score-2 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives fully concrete, executable guidance — specific lenses, structure-first ordering, an explicit field list to pass through, and the exact table shape '| Pass | Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |' — leaving nothing abstract. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present (structure first, then prose on top) with conditional handling, but it is prose rather than numbered steps and has no explicit validation checkpoints, fitting the score-2 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is short and self-contained with no external references needed, but the content is one un-sectioned dense paragraph rather than well-organized sections, so it does not reach the score-3 bar for short skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |