Content
75%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-crafted, instruction-only skill body with concrete modes, specific file references, a copy-paste entry template, and a propose-only audit workflow that bakes in verification. Minor conciseness redundancy and slightly abstract research directives keep it just short of top marks.
Suggestions
Consolidate the "section by who-uses-the-word" rule to a single canonical statement and reference it rather than restating it in Mode 2 and Mode 3.
Tighten Mode 2 step 2 ("Research the term in the codebase, FDRs, ADRs, and .claude/rules/") with the specific search heuristic from the Audit Heuristics section so the add path is as concrete as the audit path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's competence — no padding about what a glossary/RBAC/NATS is — but the "section by who-uses-the-word" rule is restated across Sections, the Where-does-a-term-go subsection, and Mode 2/3, offering minor trim opportunities. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: specific file paths (docs/GLOSSARY.md, docs/fdr/INDEX.md, .claude/rules/), a copy-paste entry-format template, named report categories, and explicit heuristics; a few directives like "research the term" remain slightly abstract. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each of the three modes has a numbered sequence with checkpoints (approval before writing in Mode 2; propose-only with dead-link/stale-flag verification in Mode 3), though no explicit edit→validate→retry feedback loop is specified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references and no inlined material that belongs in a separate file; as a single cohesive ~110-line doc with no bundle it stays at 4 rather than 5 since it lacks an overview-pointing-to-details structure. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |