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, appropriately disclosed instruction-only skill: the workflow is clearly sequenced, the report format is fully specified, and detail is correctly delegated to a single well-organized reference file. The main cost is token redundancy from repeated status enumerations, duplicated constraint/workflow statements, and five separate citations of the same reference file.
Suggestions
State the alignment status list ("complete, partial, missing, ambiguous, absent, and divergent") once — ideally in the coverage bullets or constraints — and refer to it thereafter as 'the six alignment statuses' instead of repeating the full enumeration roughly six times.
Consolidate the requirement to read `references/059-design-atdd.md` into a single prominent mention (e.g., in the Reference section or workflow step 1) rather than citing it five times across the coverage list, constraints, workflow, and Reference sections.
Trim constraint #6 ("MUST classify the outcome as `changes-requested`..."), which restates workflow step 6 nearly verbatim, and add one inline example of a matrix finding row to lift actionability from mostly-executable to copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient domain-specific guidance, but it is noticeably repetitious: the status enumeration "complete, partial, missing, ambiguous, absent, and divergent" appears at least six times, `references/059-design-atdd.md` is cited five separate times, and constraint #6 duplicates workflow step 6 almost verbatim. This goes beyond the 'minor instances' of the level-4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable instruction-level guidance: six numbered workflow steps, a specified report structure, and a fully enumerated matrix schema ("finding id, goal, criteria, tasks, status, evidence, and recommended refinement") with explicit outcome values (`ready`/`changes-requested`). It falls short of level 5 only because no inline example of a finding or matrix row is given; all examples are delegated to the reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step sequence is clearly ordered with an explicit decision checkpoint ("Use `ready` only when no unresolved alignment finding exists") and conflict-handling direction ("report source conflicts instead of resolving them silently"), matching the level-4 anchor. It lacks the explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop of level 5, e.g., a step verifying every criterion and task was linked before classification. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview: alignment definitions, classification examples, and report examples are split into the real, well-structured single reference file `references/059-design-atdd.md` (171 lines with its own role/constraints/examples/output-format sections), referenced one level deep and clearly signaled in the constraints, workflow, and a dedicated Reference section. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |