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 is well-structured with a clear scene-based workflow, explicit validation stage, and useful guardrails/pitfalls, but it reads more as an abstract framework description than an instruction manual. Core operational content (task template, examples, execution protocol) is deferred to resource files not included in the bundle, and meta-framework sections dilute token efficiency.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract meta-framework sections (SSL primitive action table, Resource scope table, Control-flow features) with concrete planning instructions, or move them to a reference file — they describe the skill's architecture rather than instructing how to plan.
Inline a minimal worked example: one input request and the resulting task entry (agent, title, priority, dependencies, acceptance criteria) or a small plan JSON snippet, so the skill remains actionable when `resources/task-template.json` and `resources/examples.md` are unavailable.
Deduplicate the References section (the prose paragraph and bullet list repeat the same files) and ensure all referenced `resources/` and `../_shared/core/` paths actually ship with the skill bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Bullet style is terse, but abstract scaffolding — the "SSL primitive" action table, the MEMORY/LOCAL_FS/CODEBASE resource-scope table, and the "Control-flow features" section — spends tokens describing the skill's framework rather than teaching planning, so the body could be meaningfully tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance exists (the guardrails checklist, pitfalls like "'Make it better' -> 'Add loading states to all forms'", and output paths such as `.agents/results/plan-{sessionId}.json`), but the actual task template and examples are deferred to `resources/` files not present in the bundle, and no example plan or task JSON is shown inline, leaving the guidance incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The PREPARE -> REASON -> ACT -> VERIFY -> FINALIZE sequence has an explicit VERIFY stage (task atomicity, acceptance criteria, security/testing coverage, dependency shape) and a failure-and-recovery section with concrete remedies, but scene steps are abstract one-liners rather than explicit checkpoints with concrete verification commands. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are one level deep and labeled with when-to-use cues (e.g., "Use `resources/iso-planning.md` when the user needs standards-based planning"), but the References section lists the same files twice (prose plus bullet list) and none of the referenced `resources/` or `../_shared/` files ship in the bundle, leaving minor organization and verification gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |