Content
57%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.
The body is maximally token-efficient but delegates everything to two external skills with no guidance on how the grilling session and domain-modeling skill combine, or how/when the promised ADRs and glossary entries get written. A few more lines defining the session flow and doc-creation checkpoints would substantially raise actionability and workflow clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Suggestions
Add a short sequenced outline of the session — e.g., how the /grilling questions interleave with /domain-modeling, and the point at which an ADR or glossary entry gets written and where it is saved.
Include a minimal validation checkpoint (e.g., 'after each major decision, confirm it with the user before recording an ADR') so the doc-creating half of the workflow has a feedback loop.
Add even minimal section headers (e.g., '## Session flow' and '## Doc outputs') so the one-line body has structure and the promised outputs are discoverable within the skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a single nine-word sentence — 'Run a `/grilling` session, using the `/domain-modeling` skill.' — with zero padding and full assumption of Claude's competence, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It names two concrete skills to invoke, but gives no guidance on how they combine, how the interview proceeds, or how the promised ADRs and glossary are produced, formatted, or saved — matching 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'. It is above 1 because the directive does name specific, invocable skills rather than being purely abstract. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single directive is unambiguous, but the skill's described behavior — an interview that creates docs 'as we go' — is a multi-step process (ask, capture decisions, write ADR/glossary entries) with no sequencing or checkpoints anywhere in the body. This fits 'steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing' rather than 4, since the doc-creation half of the workflow has no sequence at all. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Delegation to two clearly-signaled, one-level-deep skills is good disclosure practice, but the body has no sections or organization, and the doc-creation guidance the description promises has no home in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist). This lands between 'minimal structure' (2) and 'good structure' (4). | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |