Content
60%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 presents a coherent, well-sequenced agent workflow with explicit routing rules, artifact destinations, and failure recovery, and it defers detail to a clearly labeled reference layer. Its weaknesses are redundancy between overlapping sections (Expected outputs/YAML outputs, Dependencies/References) and reliance on referenced files that are not part of the reviewed bundle for the concrete 'how' of each analysis method.
Suggestions
Remove the duplication between 'Expected outputs' and the outputs YAML block, and between 'Dependencies' and 'References', by keeping one authoritative well-labeled list to tighten conciseness.
Inline a minimal concrete example of at least one method's steps or an ADR template excerpt so the skill remains actionable when the referenced resource files (output-templates.md, execution-protocol.md) are unavailable.
Deduplicate guardrails 8 and 10 against the Transitions and Entry sections, stating each rule once in the section where it carries the most weight.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with operational directives and avoids explaining known concepts, but contains several padded redundant sections: the outputs YAML block nearly duplicates the Expected outputs list, the Dependencies section repeats most of the References section, and guardrails 8 and 10 restate the Transitions and Entry rules. It is mostly efficient but could be tightened by removing these duplications, fitting the 3 anchor rather than the 2 anchor since the majority of sections carry unique content. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete elements exist (artifact destinations like docs/decisions/ and .agents/results/architecture/, method-selection conditions, the 'oma diagram resolve' command), but the executable detail — output templates, execution protocol steps, checklist contents, and how ATAM/CBAM analysis is actually performed — is deferred to resource files that are not present in the reviewed bundle, leaving key details missing. This fits the some-concrete-guidance-but-incomplete anchor rather than the mostly-executable anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Entry, the PREPARE→ACQUIRE→REASON→VERIFY→FINALIZE scenes, Transitions, Failure and recovery, and explicit Exit criteria give a clearly sequenced workflow with feedback loops and a pre-handoff checklist reference. It sits between the 4 and 5 anchors: validation is present (VERIFY scene, checklist) but described at a process level rather than as concrete checks, which is a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is structured as an overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references, each labeled with its purpose (execution-protocol, methodology-selection, output-templates, api-evolution, migration-patterns, checklist). No bundle files were provided alongside the skill for verification, and the Dependencies section duplicating most of the References list is a minor organization gap, fitting the good-structure anchor rather than the clear-and-easy-navigation top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |