Content
78%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill with concrete commands, an approval checkpoint, and clean sectioning. It lacks an explicit lint-failure feedback loop, which is the main gap keeping workflow clarity and actionability at 4.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after the lint step, e.g. "If lint fails, fix the reported issues and re-run lint before proceeding."
Tighten the densest checklist items (e.g. the red-flags list in Review Design step 6) so each red flag reads as a single scannable cue.
Make the lint-validation tie-in in Review Design step 1 explicit about what to do on failure, not just that lint should run.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; a few dense checklist items could be tightened slightly, keeping it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands ("npx ai-devkit@latest lint", "--feature <name>") and specific path-resolution steps (".ai-devkit.json paths.docs", fallback "docs/ai") are present, alongside actionable red-flag checklists, with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Two clearly numbered sequences (Phase Contract 1-8, Review Design 1-13) with a lint validation checkpoint and an approval gate; an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop is absent, capping it at 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, and well-organized into clear sections (Phase Contract, Review Design, Next), which qualifies for 5 under the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |