Content
75%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 well-organized, actionable body with executable examples and a clear session workflow. The main gaps are missing error-recovery feedback in the workflow and inlined detail that the existing reference files could carry.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop to the Workflow: when 'Verify feature passes' fails, show the fix-and-re-verify path before updating feature_list.json.
Move the full feature_list.json schema and claude-progress.txt example into references/STATE-ARTIFACTS.md, keeping only a minimal inline snippet in SKILL.md.
Add a workflow guard reinforcing that features must never be deleted (only false→true), since Key Rule 2 marks deletion as CATASTROPHIC but the workflow does not protect against it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, though the large ASCII workflow diagram and inlined artifact-format examples could be trimmed given the existing reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable, copy-paste-ready Python referencing real scripts, with only minor gaps such as an undefined `project_dir` and missing constructor/import setup. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear SESSION START/WORK/END sequence with a 'Verify feature passes' checkpoint, but lacks an explicit feedback loop for failed verification and no workflow guard around the 'CATASTROPHIC' no-delete rule. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep References and Scripts sections backed by real bundle files, though full artifact-format examples are inlined instead of deferred to the reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |