Content
71%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-structured, disciplined instruction skill: clear scope boundary (stop before architecture decisions), a concrete workflow with named upstream inputs, and exemplary progressive disclosure to a single reference file. Its main weakness is redundancy: the stop-at-discovery-list rule and the coverage bullets repeat the workflow and constraints.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'What is covered in this Skill?' bullets into the Workflow section, or keep only the boundary statement (produces a prioritized discovery list, not an ADR) once in Constraints, to remove the triple repetition of the stop-before-architecture rule.
Merge the two MUST/MUST NOT constraint bullets about not recording an architecture decision or ADR into one bullet, since they state the same prohibition.
Add one brief inline example of an evidence-grounded prioritized entry (or point to the reference's Example 2 explicitly) so step 3's prioritization guidance is actionable without opening the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly tight but repeats the stop-before-architecture rule across the coverage bullets, three Constraints bullets, and Workflow steps 4-5, and the 'What is covered' bullets largely restate the workflow. This is more than minor trimming (anchor 4) but far from padded concept explanation (anchor 2). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete instruction-skill guidance: MUST read a specific reference path, review named upstream artifacts (problem frame, root-cause findings, assumptions, context map), and prioritize by stakeholder impact and risk. Not fully actionable at score 5 because steps like 'identify candidates grounded in that evidence' defer the how to the reference file with no inline example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence with a reporting checkpoint in step 5 (flag items left open pending a clarifying answer). Not score 5 because there is no explicit validation step confirming each candidate is evidence-grounded before reporting, though no destructive/batch cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clean overview pointing to exactly one real, one-level-deep reference file (references/025-quality-attribute-discovery.md, verified to exist), signaled three ways: a MUST-read constraint, Workflow step 1, and a dedicated Reference section with a markdown link. Matches the clear-overview anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |