Content
85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-sequenced, actionable design-review workflow with real commands, validation, and feedback loops. Its main weaknesses are mild redundancy between the two sections and a few abstract directives that lack concrete completion criteria.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the lint, memory, and task-tracing guidance that appears in both Phase Contract and Review Design so each section earns its place.
Tighten abstract steps like "Brainstorm alternatives" and "Summarize requirements coverage" with concrete acceptance criteria or output formats.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The numbered lists are lean and assume competence, but the Phase Contract and Review Design sections repeat the same concerns (lint, memory, task tracing) and could be tightened. | 2.5 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands ("npx ai-devkit@latest lint --feature <name>", ".ai-devkit.json paths.docs") anchor the steps, but several items ("Brainstorm alternatives", "Summarize requirements coverage") remain abstract directives. | 2.5 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 1–10 process with explicit validation (lint upfront), a decision gate ("Do not approve or transition past design while material open questions remain"), and feedback loops (return to dev-requirements if gaps are found). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A sub-50-line single-purpose skill with no need for external references, organized into well-labeled Phase Contract and Review Design sections; no bundle files exist to verify. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |