Content
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a clear, mostly-efficient migration guide with concrete code, but it is held back by an orphaned reference file whose content is duplicated inline, illustrative/stub code rather than fully executable scripts, and the absence of explicit validation checkpoints for a destructive cutover workflow.
Suggestions
Link the existing references/implementation-guide.md from the body (e.g., a '## Implementation details' section pointing to it) and move the duplicated phase/code material there instead of restating it inline.
Replace hardcoded sample values and undefined stubs (sendViaLegacy, onDocumentCompleted) with executable, parameterized code or clearly mark them as interfaces to implement.
Add explicit validation checkpoints between migration phases (e.g., verify shadow-send parity before pilot, validate template recreation before cutover) so the destructive cutover has a validate->fix->retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient, letting code and tables carry the content with little concept-explanation, but it repeats material (Strangler Fig diagram plus a separate timeline) and duplicates much of the unreferenced implementation-guide.md, with some padded commentary ("Instructions: create each template in the Documenso UI using these specs"). Not a 1 (not padded with concepts Claude knows), not a 3 (the duplication and comments mean not every token earns its place). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, near-executable TypeScript (event mapping, dual-write router, shadow-send) and a bash rollback, but key blocks are illustrative with hardcoded sample data ("activeTemplates: 15", "documentsPerMonth: 200"), templates are UI-only with no executable path, and functions like sendViaLegacy/onDocumentCompleted are undefined stubs. Not a 1 (real code and commands exist), not a 3 (not fully copy-paste executable due to stubs and sample data). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 6-step sequence with a phase diagram, timeline, and rollback procedure is present, but for a destructive cutover/batch migration the rubric requires explicit validation checkpoints between phases; validation is only loose (shadow-send "compare results", a reactive error table) with no validate->fix->retry gate. Per the rubric, missing validation gates for destructive/batch ops caps this at 2. Not a 1 (sequence is clearly laid out). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-structured bundle file exists (references/implementation-guide.md, ~16KB with phases and rollback), but the SKILL.md body never links or signals it, instead duplicating much of the same material inline; the reference is effectively orphaned with no one-level-deep navigation. Not a 1 (sections are organized, not a monolithic wall), not a 3 (references are not clearly signaled and content that should be separate is inline). | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |