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 skill body is a well-structured overview with notably concrete guardrails and explicit failure-recovery branches, but it duplicates its own trigger information across multiple sections and keeps its main workflow at a high altitude, deferring operational detail to reference files. Progressive disclosure is good in principle, though the resources/ vs reference/ split is confusing and no bundle files exist to verify the referenced paths.
Suggestions
Consolidate the duplicated trigger content — "Intent signature", "When to use", and the frontmatter description all restate the same triggers; keep one.
Make validation checkpoints executable: name the concrete checks in "run the design checklist" and "Phase 6 mechanical checks" instead of pointing at external files, or inline a short version of the checklist.
Unify the reference directories (merge "reference/" into "resources/" or rename one) and link the reference paths so navigation is unambiguous, and ship the referenced files in the bundle so the pointers resolve.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and the guardrails are dense, but trigger information is repeated across "Intent signature", "When to use", and the frontmatter, and sections like "Control-flow features", the "Resource scope" table, and the outputs YAML block are process metadata rather than instruction. It is not a 2 because there is no concept-explanation padding, and not a 4 because the duplicated trigger lists and metadata sections could be noticeably tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some guidance is genuinely concrete — the exact system font stack, the CJK priority order "Pretendard Variable > Noto Sans CJK > system-ui fallback", the semantic color naming example, and the executable `bunx getdesign@latest list` command. However the core workflow steps are abstract ("Inspect relevant existing context", "Use the chosen direction") and only one command appears in the entire body, with most operational detail deferred to reference files that are not present in the bundle. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Entry, Transitions, Failure and recovery, and Exit give a clear sequence with explicit recovery branches ("If vendor seed fetch fails, choose retry, continue without seed, or abort"; "If accessibility checks fail, revise before handoff"; "If design context is insufficient, ask for one focused clarification"). It falls short of 5 because checkpoints like "run the design checklist" and "audit against them in Phase 6" are pointers to external content rather than explicit validation steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The References section lists twenty files, each with a one-line purpose label (e.g., "resources/redesign-protocol.md: existing-site redesign"), which is well-signaled and one level deep. It is not a 5 because the paths split confusingly between two similarly named directories ("resources/" and "reference/"), the references are plain text rather than links, and the Scheduling metadata (intent signature, expected inputs/outputs) is inline content that could live elsewhere or be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |