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 strong, highly actionable instruction-only skill: concrete templates, numeric rules, and a defined deliverable set, with a clean one-level reference structure that was verified against the actual bundle files. Its main weakness is token efficiency — the "Task-Specific Questions" section duplicates "Before Planning" context gathering, and breadcrumb guidance is repeated in three places.
Suggestions
Delete the "Task-Specific Questions" section (or fold any unique items into "Before Planning") — its six questions (new vs. restructuring, site type, page count, important pages, URLs to preserve, audiences) are already gathered by the four "Before Planning" subsections.
Consolidate the three breadcrumb treatments ("Breadcrumbs" row in Navigation Types, "Breadcrumb Format" section, and "Breadcrumb-URL Alignment" section) into a single breadcrumb block so the mirror-the-URL rule is stated once.
Trim conceptual explanation Claude already knows — e.g., the rationale paragraphs under "The 3-Click Rule" and "Flat vs Deep" — down to just the prescriptive rules and numbers.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient — the bulk is dense tables and prescriptive rules ("4-7 items max in the primary nav," "5-10 internal links per 1000 words") — but there is real tightening to do: the "Task-Specific Questions" section re-asks questions already gathered in "Before Planning" (new vs. restructuring, site type, page count, important pages, audiences), and breadcrumb-URL alignment guidance is repeated across "Navigation Design," "URL Structure," and its own section. This fits the score-3 anchor ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than score 4, where over-explanation would be only 'minor instances'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The body is copy-paste-ready throughout: an ASCII tree template, two Mermaid `graph TD` examples, URL pattern tables per page type ("/features/{name}", "/docs/{section}/{page}"), a URL map table schema, a five-part deliverable spec in "Output Format," and a link audit checklist. This matches the score-5 anchor ('copy-paste ready... specific examples cover the common cases') and exceeds score 4, which allows 'minor gaps'. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear discernible sequence runs from "Before Planning" (context gathering) through the design sections (hierarchy → navigation → URLs → linking) to the explicit "Output Format" deliverables, with no validation cap applicable since this is planning, not a destructive or batch operation. It falls short of score 5 because the sequence is implicit in section order rather than explicitly numbered, and there are no checkpoints (e.g., confirm site type with the user before generating the full plan) — fitting 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Four references exist on disk and each is linked exactly once, clearly signaled, one level deep: "see [references/platforms-and-migration.md]", "See [references/site-type-templates.md]", "See [references/navigation-patterns.md]", "See [references/mermaid-templates.md]". The body keeps overview-level content inline (summary tables, one worked example per format) and pushes the bulk (full site-type templates, 300-line navigation patterns, Mermaid library) into the references — matching the score-5 anchor ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split'). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |