Content
63%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 delivers a well-structured, actionable workflow with explicit fallbacks and a decision gate, but redundancy inflates token cost and the review process critically depends on a rules/design-review.md file that is not present in the bundle. Tightening the duplicates and resolving the reference would move it into the top tier.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicated mission statement (the Role and Core Mission sections repeat the same sentence) and consolidate the interactivity guidance, which appears in Core Mission, Execution Steps, Important Constraints, and Tool Guidance.
Trim the generic skill-selection boilerplate in Step 1 to the one rule that matters for this skill (which steering/playbook files to load before reviewing).
Ship or inline the content of rules/design-review.md — the review criteria, issue format, and output format all delegate to it, so its absence makes the core review process unverifiable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient but has noticeable redundancy: the Role and Core Mission lines repeat 'Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation' verbatim, interactivity is stated at least three times, and Step 1 carries generic skill-selection boilerplate ('Select by description and read only needed guidance, even for small tasks; preserve required checks and host/project rules'). This exceeds anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation' but is not severely padded like anchor 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance dominates: exact file paths ('{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/design.md'), commands ('/kiro-spec-tasks {feature}'), hard limits ('Maximum 3 issues'), verbatim fallback messages, and a structured output format. Minor gaps remain — the codebase pattern survey step ('Gather existing architecture patterns... from the codebase') gives no method — so it is not anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-step sequence is clear with explicit error scenarios (missing design, empty steering, undefined language) and a GO/NO-GO decision gate plus a NO-GO feedback loop (address issues, re-run /kiro-spec-design, re-validate). It is not anchor 5 because the in-review checkpoints and criteria are delegated to the external design-review.md rather than validated inline. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the reference to 'rules/design-review.md from this skill's directory' is clearly signaled and one level deep, but that file — which carries the review criteria and output format the skill depends on — is absent from the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist). A critical dangling reference keeps this at anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |