Content
56%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 clear, well-sequenced interactive review workflow with concrete file paths, commands, error handling, and an explicit decision gate. Its main weaknesses are redundant restatement of the same constraints across sections and a core dependency on design-review.md for the actual review criteria — a file that is missing from the bundle, leaving the methodology itself unspecified.
Suggestions
Consolidate the duplicated guidance: state the 3-issue limit, interactivity, and language rule once (e.g., in Important Constraints) and remove their repetition from background_information, Execution Steps, and Tool Guidance.
Ship the referenced 'rules/design-review.md' in the skill bundle (or inline its review criteria and output format) so the 'Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO' process is actually executable rather than a dangling reference.
Add a short worked example of a critical issue and a GO/NO-GO rationale to make the review judgment concrete instead of leaving issue identification entirely to judgment.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but the same guidance is repeated across sections — 'maximum 3 issues' appears in Success Criteria, Execution Step 2, and Important Constraints; 'interactive' engagement is stated in the mission, Step 2, Constraints, and Tool Guidance; 'language specified in spec.json' appears twice. The duplication exceeds the 'minor instances' of score 4 and could be consolidated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Workflow mechanics are concrete (exact paths like '{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.json', exact next-step commands like '$kiro-spec-tasks $1 -y', and verbatim error messages), but the heart of the skill — the review methodology — is delegated to 'Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO', and that file is not present in the bundle. Key executable details are therefore missing rather than a minor gap. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear and well gated: Gather Context → Execute Design Review → Decision and Next Steps, with a parallel-research plan, an explicit GO/NO-GO decision point with rationale, and four enumerated error scenarios with fallbacks. This is not a destructive or batch operation so the validation cap does not apply; it falls short of 5 only because there is no explicit re-validation feedback loop after revisions beyond pointing back to '$kiro-spec-design $1'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well sectioned and its shared-rules reference is clearly signaled ('rules/design-review.md from this skill's directory for review criteria', plus metadata 'shared-rules: design-review.md'), but that file does not exist anywhere in the bundle — no rules/, references/, or other bundle directories are present. The one-level-deep navigation is therefore a dangling pointer, which is more than the 'minor organization gap' of score 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |