Content
52%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 rich, well-guarded ideation protocol with excellent pitfalls and concrete save/handoff mechanics, undermined by heavy structural redundancy — the same workflow rendered in four parallel schemas plus repeated rules — and by undefined central vocabulary (tiers, lenses). The navigation and references are clean, but the token budget pays repeatedly for the same information.
Suggestions
Collapse "Scenes", "Canonical workflow path", and "Execution Phases" into a single authoritative sequence; state each rule (one-question-at-a-time, TRIZ-lite optionality, blind review) once in the guardrails instead of 4-6 times.
Define the Tier 1/2/3 issue classification and enumerate the reviewer lenses (or point to a reference that does), since blind review is the mandatory quality gate.
Trim template ceremony with low action value — the SSL-primitive Actions table and the Resource scope/Preconditions/Effects tables — or fold their one useful line each into the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The same 5-7 step workflow is restated four times in parallel forms ("Scenes", "Canonical workflow path", "Execution Phases", plus Scheduling's when/outputs), and individual rules repeat up to six times — "ask one question at a time" appears in Control-flow features, Scenes, the canonical path, Guardrail 2, Phase 2, and Pitfalls; TRIZ-lite optionality is stated six times. Not a 3: this goes beyond "could be tightened" — whole sections (Execution Phases) and the SSL-primitive Actions table are padded ceremony; not a 1: there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and the guardrails/pitfalls sections are dense and substantive. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete specifics exist — exact save path `docs/decisions/{NNN}-{name}.md`, index update, recording with `brainstorm.option-selection` and matching `--instance`, prose-brief fields (scenario, mechanism, residual risk, effort) — but key details are missing: Tier 1/2/3 are never defined, the reviewer "lenses" are never enumerated, and no worked example of a prose brief, question, or design section is given. Not a 4: these gaps leave an executor guessing at the central artifacts of steps 4-5; not a 2: the guidance includes real commands, paths, and named tool calls rather than high-level hints. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear (Entry → PREPARE/ACQUIRE/REASON/VERIFY/FINALIZE, mirrored in 7 phases) with explicit validation gates (blind review with Tier 1 resolution before save, approval before planning) and a genuine failure-and-recovery section with feedback loops. Not a 5: the four overlapping representations diverge slightly (5 scenes vs 7 phases, differing step detail) without declaring which is authoritative, which introduces mild ambiguity; not a 3: validation checkpoints and recovery loops are explicit, not missing. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure: a dedicated References section clearly signals one-level-deep pointers (`resources/triz-lite.md`, `../_shared/core/*.md`), optional TRIZ detail is properly externalized, and sections are well-organized. Not a 5: the referenced `resources/triz-lite.md` is not present in the skill's bundle directory (no references/ or resources/ files ship alongside SKILL.md), so the pointer is unverifiable from the skill itself; not a 3: references are clearly signaled and the inline content is organized, not a wall of misplaced material. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |