Content
38%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 short and well-scoped with sensible boundaries (opt-out rule, non-AsciiDoc exclusion, responsibility split with spec-loop-plan-task), but it is a stub: it duplicates the description, and every substantive instruction defers to glossary-format.md, which is absent from the bundle. With no format details, no example entries, and no validation steps, the skill is not self-sufficient as written.
Suggestions
Ship glossary-format.md alongside SKILL.md (or inline the format spec in the body) — the body's only actionable instruction depends on a file that does not exist in the bundle, leaving the skill with dangling references.
Replace the abstract 'test semantic identity against existing abstractions' with a concrete procedure or a worked example glossary entry showing when to reuse an existing abstraction name versus requiring a refactoring proposal.
Add a validation checkpoint after glossary edits (e.g., re-check that every term conforms to the format and that superseded terms are cross-linked), since superseding/refactoring terms is destructive to a shared document.
Delete the two opening paragraphs that restate the frontmatter description verbatim to reclaim redundant tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body opens by restating the frontmatter description almost verbatim ("Use for creating, updating, or superseding a project glossary in the Spec Loop AsciiDoc format. This skill is mandatory for AsciiDoc project glossaries unless the user explicitly opts out..."), which duplicates context already loaded from the description. That is more than minor trimming, matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' rather than the efficient anchor at 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The only operational instructions are "read [glossary-format.md](glossary-format.md) and apply it" and the abstract directive "test semantic identity against existing abstractions. Reuse the current abstraction name or require the explicit, approved refactoring proposal" — no concrete procedure, no example glossary entry, and the file holding the actual specifics is not present in the bundle. This matches 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; it is above 1 only because the pre-add-term check names a real decision point. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists (read the format file, apply project instructions, run the semantic-identity check before adding a term), but there are no validation checkpoints — nothing verifies the glossary conforms to the format after edits. Since superseding and refactoring terms are destructive edits to a shared project document with no validate-and-retry loop, workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the missing-feedback-loop rule. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body's core content is delegated via two links to [glossary-format.md](glossary-format.md), but the bundle contains no such file (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist), so the primary reference is dangling and navigation leads nowhere. The simple-skill exception does not apply because this skill clearly needs the external reference; a broken primary reference is worse than the organization gaps of the 3 anchor, landing at 2. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |