Content
67%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 genuinely actionable, well-sequenced adaptive workflow with concrete thresholds and ready-to-use output templates. Its main weaknesses are the padded anti-rationalization section and a missing feedback loop for the plan-rejection path.
Suggestions
Remove or drastically shrink the 'Anti-Rationalization' table — it argues for the skill's value rather than instructing, which pads token cost without adding executable guidance.
Add a rejection-path feedback loop to Step 3, e.g., 'If not approved: revise the plan per user feedback and re-confirm before execution.'
Replace the comment-only search block in Step 1 with a concrete example command (e.g., 'grep -r "<symbol>" --include="*.ts" -l' or a Glob pattern) for estimating scope.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The classification thresholds and plan templates are tight and earn their tokens, but the 'Anti-Rationalization' table ('That's what every developer says before a 3-day rabbit hole. 10 minutes of planning saves hours.') is motivational padding that assumes Claude needs convincing, and 'Estimated Cost' fields repeat across templates. The padding is more than minor, so it sits at 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete complexity thresholds ('1-2 files, <50 lines'), copy-ready plan templates for each tier, an exact confirmation question, and an exact output block give mostly executable guidance. The gap is Step 1's comment-only pseudocode search block ('# Find affected files'), which keeps it from a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-step sequence (assess → generate → confirm) with an explicit user-approval gate and checkpoints embedded in the MEDIUM template ('After Task 2: Verify [condition]'). It misses a 5 because the rejection path is unspecified — 'If approved, delegate to @executor' says nothing about revising the plan when the user declines or requests changes. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so there are no nested or buried references, and the ~130-line single-file structure with clear sections (Workflow, Output, Rules) is appropriate for the skill's size. It does not reach 5 because the skill exceeds the simple-skill threshold and the four tier templates could be split into reference files if the skill grows. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |