Content
75%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-crafted routing doctrine: it provides a concrete ordered decision procedure, explicit boundary rules for every ambiguous case, and disciplined delegation to AGENTS.md and sibling skills instead of duplicating their content. The prose assumes Claude's competence and stays project-specific throughout. Remaining gaps are minor — a worked routing example, a light trim of rhetorical framing, and an optional split of the SDK section — which is why every dimension lands at 4 rather than 5.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example of classifying a real request (e.g., a request that sounds like user docs but is actually WG) through the three ordered questions, to lift actionability and workflow_clarity toward 5.
Trim editorial framing such as 'The boundaries are real, not bureaucratic' and 'the most common and most expensive docs mistake… invisible until someone reads it for the wrong reason' to pure directive statements, tightening conciseness.
The table's last column crams multiple skills and caveats into one cell; convert the 'Governing skill' column into short link(s) only and move the caveats into the routing section, improving organization.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body teaches only project-specific doctrine (families, homes, boundaries, sync rules) that Claude cannot know, and explicitly refuses to repeat AGENTS.md ('Read it once; this skill does not repeat it'). Minor rhetorical padding could be trimmed — 'The boundaries are real, not bureaucratic', 'is the most common and most expensive docs mistake, because it is invisible until someone reads it for the wrong reason' — fitting the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor rather than the fully lean anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: an ordered decision procedure ('Ask, in order: 1… 2… 3…' with explicit outcomes), concrete home paths (packages/<pkg>/docs/, docs/reference/**, docs/wg/**), named hand-off targets with links, and specific edge-case rules (plans → gitignored *.plan.md; FX docs → authored in its own repo). As an instruction-only skill the absence of code is fine, but there is no worked example of classifying a real request, leaving anchor 4 rather than 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The routing workflow is a clearly sequenced, ordered decision tree with explicit per-branch outcomes and an unambiguous terminal step ('hand off to its governing skill and stop reading here'), plus boundary rules for the ambiguous cases. There is no error-recovery or verification loop after a routing decision (not required — no destructive or batch operations), which keeps it at 'clear sequence with most checkpoints' rather than anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: operational detail is delegated to docs/AGENTS.md by explicit pointer, and all references (docs-wg, docs-canvas, seo, links, grounding, AGENTS.md) are one level deep, clearly signaled markdown links. However, the ~110-line body inlines the full SDK doctrine and boundary rules rather than splitting any of it out, and the very wide table renders awkwardly, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than the cleanly split overview of anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |