Content
63%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 well-structured with a clear four-step workflow, explicit MUST/MUST NOT constraints, and exemplary one-level-deep reference handling. Its weaknesses are redundancy — constraints restate the workflow and the reference-file instruction repeats four times — and the absence of any worked example showing what trusted facts, discovered examples, or resulting scenarios look like.
Suggestions
Consolidate the Constraints section with the Workflow: state each operational rule once (e.g., the bundled-reference requirement currently appears in the coverage list, two MUST constraints, two workflow steps, and the Reference section) and drop trigger phrases that duplicate the frontmatter description.
Add one compact worked example in the workflow — a trusted fact, a derived concrete example, and the resulting Given/When/Then scenario — so the output shape is concrete rather than purely procedural.
Include a validation checkpoint in step 3 or 4 that checks each formulated scenario against a confirmed fact or rule before reporting, closing the feedback loop the workflow currently lacks.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and free of concept explanations Claude already knows, but the Constraints list restates the Workflow steps nearly verbatim, the bundled-reference instruction appears four times ('MUST read references/058-design-bdd.md', 'MUST use ... as the complete runtime source', workflow steps 1 and 3, plus the Reference section), and 'When to use this skill' duplicates the frontmatter triggers. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the lean score-5 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Workflow steps name concrete artifacts to produce ('sources, actors, desired outcomes, business rules, shared terminology', 'main, alternative, boundary, and error examples', Given/When/Then scenarios), but no worked example of a trusted behavior fact, a discovered example, or a resulting scenario is ever shown — a key detail missing for a skill whose purpose is concrete examples. This sits between 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' and 'mostly executable guidance', and the missing output shape keeps it at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence (Establish Trusted Behavior Facts → Discover Concrete Examples → Formulate Observable Scenarios → Report the BDD Outcome) with an explicit clarification checkpoint in step 1 and a reporting step enumerating unresolved decisions, conflicts, deferred examples, and risks matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. It is not 5 because there is no feedback loop validating formulated scenarios back against confirmed facts; it is above 3 because checkpoints are explicit and the operation is non-destructive. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md body is a compact, well-sectioned overview and the single bundle file (references/058-design-bdd.md, verified to exist) is one level deep, clearly signaled in a dedicated Reference section, with content appropriately split between overview and reference. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; easy navigation' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |