Content
65%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 doctrine-grade, largely concise, and gives concrete ordered heuristics, but it lacks explicit validation/feedback checkpoints for the contract-risky decisions it governs and is a monolithic file with no progressive-disclosure bundle to offload detail. Workflow clarity and disclosure are the limiting dimensions.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/feedback checkpoint to the promotion and public-API workflows (e.g. 'before promoting: confirm ≥2 internal consumers; if only one, mark unstable and stop').
Move the critique-partner probes and the deciding-table rationale into a companion reference file (e.g. references/deciding-table.md) and link to it one level deep to improve progressive disclosure.
Tighten the repeated restatements of the core thesis (it appears in the intro, 'The thesis', 'The short version', and several discipline headers) to recover token budget.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean and assumes reader competence, using tight aphorisms ("An SDK lives or dies by what it refuses to expose") and a compact deciding table, but a few sections restate the thesis multiple times and could be trimmed, keeping it just below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, applicable guidance — a first-match deciding table, an ordered three-rung extension ladder, and a runnable-test discipline — with only minor gaps (e.g. the layering diagram is illustrative rather than a runnable command), so it sits above anchor 3 but below fully copy-paste-ready anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequences like the deciding table and extension ladder are ordered with first-match/reach-down rules, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the destructive/contract-changing operations the skill governs (promotions, public-API changes, anti-goal violations), which caps clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well sectioned but is a single 285-line monolith with no bundle files and only loose one-level pointers to companion skills ($sdk-seam, $naming); content that could be split (the deciding table rationale, the critique-partner probes) is inlined, so it is structured but not optimally disclosed. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |