Content
73%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 a well-sequenced, gated authoring workflow with strong validation checkpoints and concrete executable MCP calls and templates. Its main weakness is moderate repetition of the same discipline warnings across multiple sections, which lightly inflates the token budget without adding new guidance.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated 'don't skip the Step 1 gate' and 'don't pad Alternatives / leave Drawbacks empty' warnings — state each once (e.g., in Non-goals) and reference it rather than restating in the intro, Step 1, Step 5, and Step 6.
Fully parameterize the Step 8 validation calls (`links({ kind: "backlinks", ... })` and `audit({ path: ... })`) so they are copy-paste ready rather than leaving args implicit.
Consider extracting the reusable framing/alternatives/recap output templates into a single reference block or a `references/templates.md` file to reduce body length and enable one-level-deep progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's intelligence (no basic-concept padding), but several sections repeat the same discipline points verbatim across Step 1, Non-goals, and the opening — e.g., the 'skipped gate' / 'strawmen / empty Drawbacks' warnings appear three times — so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, copy-ready commands and templates — `exec("ls -A proposals/")`, the `write({ document: { path: ..., template: "proposal" } })` call, the exact framing/alternatives/recap blocks — with only minor gaps (the audit/links MCP calls are named but not fully parameterized). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A hard-gated 0–9 sequence with an explicit STOP gate at Step 1, per-step validation in Step 8 (audit returns clean, all five H2 sections non-empty, status still draft), and a recap checklist with explicit feedback on rejection — matching the level-5 anchor of explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops for a non-destructive authoring workflow. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear H2 sections with one-level-deep references to sibling skills (record-a-decision, write-a-spec) and to external decisions/specs via plain relative links; there are no local bundle files to reference, so structure is appropriate but it cannot hit the level-5 'reference files' pattern because the skill is intentionally self-contained. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |