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 reasonable framework for Java implementation planning with a clear workflow and well-defined constraints. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete, executable examples (no template snippets, no sample plan output, no example of source metadata recording) and some redundancy across sections. The workflow would benefit from explicit post-generation validation steps and concrete examples showing what good output looks like.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example showing what a generated plan's source metadata and derivation direction section looks like (even a brief snippet), to make the actionability more tangible.
Include a sample conflict detection and resolution exchange to illustrate step 2 concretely rather than abstractly.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after step 4 (e.g., 'Verify plan includes all required sections from the template; if any are missing, add them before presenting to user').
Remove redundant statements about OpenSpec not being required—state it once clearly in constraints and reference it elsewhere rather than repeating.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy—constraints like 'MUST NOT require OpenSpec' are stated multiple times across sections, and some bullet points in the constraints section restate what's already in the workflow. The concern-classification explanations could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The workflow provides a clear sequence of steps but lacks concrete, executable examples. There are no sample commands beyond 'run date', no template snippets showing what the plan output looks like, and no concrete examples of conflict resolution or source metadata recording. Guidance remains at the descriptive level rather than copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced and includes some validation (step 2 conflict resolution, step 3 approval gate). However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints after plan generation (e.g., verify plan against template structure), and the feedback loop for error recovery is implicit rather than explicit. The 'confirm and wait for approval' step is good but the post-generation verification is missing. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references a single external file (references/041-planning-plan-mode.md) for detailed guidance, which is appropriate one-level-deep disclosure. However, no bundle files were provided to verify the reference exists, and the inline content is somewhat heavy on constraints that could potentially be in the reference file. The structure is reasonable but the balance between inline and referenced content could be improved. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |