Content
56%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 teaches a coherent, actionable six-step planning workflow with good per-step examples and an estimation formula, but it badly violates its own progressive-disclosure guidance: at 4,800+ words it duplicates its core content across four summary sections and includes three broken bundle references plus internally inconsistent step naming. Consolidating the redundant sections and fixing the reference links would lift both conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Consolidate the four restatements of the six-step process (Quick Start, Planning Output, Success Criteria, Quick Reference) into a single brief summary, and move the duplicated pattern tables and decision tree into references/pattern-selection-guide.md to bring SKILL.md under its own 5,000-word target.
Fix the broken bundle references: create templates/skill-plan-template.md or remove the link, and correct 'references/content-specification-guide.md' and 'references/complexity-assessment-guide.md' to point at files that actually exist (e.g., complexity-estimation-guide.md).
Reconcile the Quick Reference table and 'For More Information' section with the actual six workflow steps, which currently use different step names and numbering.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At 4,807 words / 1,329 lines, the body restates its core content four times: 'Quick Start: Plan a Skill in 30 Minutes', 'Planning Output', 'Success Criteria', and 'Quick Reference' each re-summarize the same six steps and outputs, and the pattern-selection decision tree appears in full both in Step 2 and again in 'Quick Reference'. These are several unnecessary, padded sections — noticeably verbose, not merely 'some' over-explanation. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: a concrete pattern decision tree, an estimation formula with three worked numeric examples, complete file-structure examples, and runnable commands ('python scripts/plan-skill.py --interactive'). Minor gaps remain, e.g. final plan output is only described abstractly and the promised structured-output template link is broken. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are clearly sequenced, each with Objective/Process/Output/Example, and Step 6 defines validation criteria and test cases — most checkpoints are present. However, the 'Quick Reference' table lists different step names ('4. Plan Content', '6. Create Plan Document') than the actual workflow steps ('4. Estimate Complexity', '6. Define Validation Criteria'), and 'For More Information' misnumbers the steps, creating internal inconsistency that keeps it below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are well-signaled with descriptive link text and four real reference files plus a script exist, but three referenced paths are broken — 'templates/skill-plan-template.md' (no templates/ directory), 'references/content-specification-guide.md', and 'references/complexity-assessment-guide.md' (the actual file is complexity-estimation-guide.md) — and substantial duplicated summary content (Quick Reference, Success Criteria) is inlined in SKILL.md rather than moved to references. Broken navigation links and inlined duplicate content are more than the 'minor organization gaps' of a 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |