Content
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured conversational workflow skill with clear phase separation and good sequencing. Its main weaknesses are verbosity (explaining social dynamics and design collaboration norms that Claude already understands) and a lack of concrete output examples — the plan template describes sections but doesn't show what a good implementation plan actually looks like. The skill would benefit from trimming explanatory prose and adding a concrete example of a completed plan.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a completed implementation plan (even abbreviated) so Claude has a clear reference for the expected output format and level of detail.
Trim the 'Important guidelines' section — directives like 'never talk down to the user' and 'designers are busy' describe social awareness Claude already has; focus on the non-obvious constraints like avoiding technical jargon in Phase 1.
Show concrete tool invocation patterns for Figma MCP, Linear MCP, and EnterPlanMode/ExitPlanMode rather than just naming them.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is well-written but verbose in places. The example dialogue snippets, while helpful, add significant length. Some guidelines (e.g., 'Never talk down to the user') explain social norms Claude already understands. The discovery phase interview topics could be more compressed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear conversational workflow and specific plan structure, but lacks concrete executable examples. The 'code sketches' and 'proposed types/interfaces' sections describe what the engineer's plan should contain rather than providing templates or examples of what good output looks like. References to tools (Figma MCP, Linear MCP, EnterPlanMode) are named but usage patterns aren't shown. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The two-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit transitions (confirm understanding → research codebase → enter plan mode → create Linear issue → wrap up). There are feedback loops built in ('If the user wants to adjust or add things, loop back') and a clear fallback if Linear MCP is unavailable. The plan structure serves as a validation checklist. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a single monolithic file with no references to supporting documents. At ~200 lines, the plan template section and discovery interview guidance could be split into separate reference files. However, the internal structure with clear headers and phases provides reasonable organization within the single file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |