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 delivers a clear, well-exemplified conversational workflow with concrete questions, follow-up triggers, and complete dialogue examples, but pays a heavy token cost for decorative ASCII diagrams and inline template content duplicated in the bundle. The dangling templates/*.md references and the unused-script listing are the structural weak points.
Suggestions
Replace the ~90-line ASCII flow diagram with a compact four-phase outline (a header list with 1-2 lines per phase) — it conveys the same sequence at a fraction of the tokens.
Remove the inlined 'Project Templates' section and the references to the non-existent templates/*.md files; point solely to references/TEMPLATES.md, which already contains that content.
Either add concrete invocation examples for the five bundled scripts (command line, arguments, when to run each) or drop the Scripts section if the skill is meant to run purely conversationally.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body contains several padded sections: a ~90-line ASCII box-drawing flow diagram that restates the four phase headers, a second ASCII integration diagram, and a 'Project Templates' section that inlines ~45 lines of template content duplicated in references/TEMPLATES.md. This matches anchor 2 ('noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections') rather than anchor 3's 'mostly efficient'. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance dominates: enumerated discovery questions with purposes, a follow-up question trigger table, template definitions, and two complete input→Q&A→generated-spec dialogue examples covering both vague and clear inputs. It falls short of anchor 5 because the five bundled scripts are listed with one-line descriptions but no invocation commands or guidance on when to run them. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-phase sequence (discovery → elaboration → tech recommendation → spec output) is clearly laid out with specific questions per phase and a handoff step to autonomous-master, matching anchor 4. It misses anchor 5 because there is no explicit checkpoint such as confirming the final spec with the user before invoking autonomous start:. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sectioning is good and the References and Scripts listings point to real, one-level-deep bundle files. However, the body's Templates section cites templates/saas.md through templates/internal.md, none of which exist, and it inlines template content that belongs in references/TEMPLATES.md. This sits between anchors 2 and 3 — structure is better than 'minimal', but the broken paths and duplication keep it below anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |