Content
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a solid organizational framework for executing feature plans with useful project-specific conventions like the scoring rubric for task routing and the plan lifecycle. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete executable examples (no actual commands for running tests, validating, or committing) and missing explicit error recovery steps in the workflow. The content is reasonably well-structured but could be more concise by trimming sections that describe what Claude can infer from reading plan files directly.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable command examples for key workflow steps (e.g., specific test commands, commit message format examples, how to check dependencies are met)
Add explicit error recovery/feedback loops to the execution workflow — e.g., 'If tests fail: read error output, fix the implementation, re-run tests before proceeding'
Trim the 'Plan Structure' section — Claude can infer this from reading any plan file; replace with only non-obvious conventions or gotchas
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient but includes some sections that could be tightened. The scoring dimensions table and complexity assessment sections add useful project-specific context, but the plan structure section describes things Claude can infer from reading any plan file. The documentation checklist is useful but somewhat verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The workflow provides a clear sequence of steps and the scoring rubric gives concrete thresholds for task routing. However, there are no executable code examples or specific commands — guidance like 'run specified tests' and 'implement changes' remains abstract rather than showing exact commands. The /fleet usage section gives some concrete syntax examples but they're illustrative rather than executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The execution workflow has a clear sequence (read → identify → implement → test → commit) with some validation checkpoints (run tests after phase, verify acceptance criteria). However, there's no explicit error recovery or feedback loop — what happens when tests fail or acceptance criteria aren't met? For a workflow involving multi-file changes across modules, the lack of explicit rollback or fix-and-retry guidance is a gap. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and tables, but it's a fairly long monolithic document with no references to supporting files. Given there are no bundle files, some of the detailed content (scoring dimensions, documentation checklist, common plan types) could potentially be split out. The plan locations table effectively serves as navigation to the actual plan files, which is good. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |