Content
81%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 well-structured, highly actionable validation workflow: sequenced steps, concrete commands, explicit decision gates, a complete report template, and error-recovery feedback loops. Minor gaps — an undefined file-boundary placeholder, some repeated boundary framing, and inlined detail that could be split into reference files — hold conciseness, actionability, and progressive disclosure at 4.
Suggestions
Define how to enumerate <files-in-feature-boundary> (e.g., derive it from the design's Boundary Commitments and File Structure Plan) so the grep commands in checks B and C are fully executable.
Move the boundary-terminology glossary and the detailed judgment-check definitions (E–G.5) into a one-level-deep reference file to slim SKILL.md and cut the repetition of boundary framing across sections.
Provide a short subagent prompt template for the dispatch step so parallel validation dimensions return findings in the expected structured format.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense instructional content with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, e.g. 'Run the discovered canonical full-test command. Use the exit code.' However, boundary concerns repeat across the Role, Core Mission, E, G.5, and Constraints sections, and filler like 'The agent should decide the optimal decomposition based on feature scope' could be trimmed — efficient with minor over-explanation, matching anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable guidance: exact grep commands ('grep -rn "TBD\|TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX" <files-in-feature-boundary>'), an ordered command-discovery source list, an explicit report template, and hard decision rules ('If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.'). Not anchor 5 because the '<files-in-feature-boundary>' placeholder is never concretely derived and the subagent dispatch step lacks prompt templates — minor gaps, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced four-step workflow (detect target → gather context → execute validation → generate report) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Use the exit code', 'If boot produces a runtime crash ... → NO-GO', 'If the canonical test command cannot be identified → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED') and feedback loops for error recovery (NO-GO → REMEDIATION → 'Re-run /kiro-impl ... Re-validate with /kiro-validate-impl'). This matches anchor 5 exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so scoring is against the SKILL.md structure itself: well-organized sections (Role, Core Mission, Execution Steps with lettered checks, Important Constraints, Safety & Fallback) with clear headers and no nested references. Not anchor 5 because at ~200 lines, detail such as the boundary-terminology glossary and check definitions E–G.5 could live in one-level-deep reference files, and there are minor organizational blemishes like the 'G'/'G.5' duplicate lettering; well above anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |