Content
56%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 core PRD guidance (principles, template, examples, workflow) is concrete and well structured, but the body is bloated by a lengthy off-topic question-formatting section and duplicated persist-to-disk instructions. Moving the question-format rules to a reference file and tightening Section 2 would substantially improve both conciseness and organization.
Suggestions
Move the Section 0 'Question Format (FR-UNIVERSAL.QA-FORMAT)' rules to a references/ file (e.g., references/question-format.md) and keep a two- or three-line summary in SKILL.md, cutting roughly half the body's tokens.
State the 'save to a file (documents/prd-<slug>.md)' requirement once — either the top CRITICAL blockquote or step 5 — instead of repeating it twice.
Tighten the long sub-bullets in Section 2 ('When the product's own data is unknown', question-format details) to the operative rule plus one example each; the current multi-clause paragraphs repeat the same point several ways.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Section 0 (Question Format) is a ~1,200-word block of hyper-detailed question-formatting rules (option titles, 'Essence' lines, pointer replacement, catch-all bans) largely unrelated to PRD writing, and the 'MUST save to file' instruction is stated twice (top blockquote and step 5) — noticeably verbose with several padded sections. It is not a 1 because it never explains concepts Claude already knows; the padding is redundancy and off-scope prescriptiveness. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | The body gives a copy-paste-ready PRD template with concrete sections, concrete Bad-vs-Good examples ('API response time must be under 200ms for 95% of requests at a load of 100 QPS'), a recommended-value format for targets, a specific output path pattern (`documents/prd-<slug>.md`), and a Mermaid example — mostly executable guidance with the minor gap of no worked example of a completed PRD. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–5 (Analyze → Ask → Draft → Review → Persist) are clearly sequenced with an ordering constraint (never write the file in the question round), a review checkpoint against Section 4 examples, and a feedback loop for unanswered targets (recommended value marked '(proposed, awaiting approval)' and listed in Open Questions). It is not a 5 because the Review checkpoint is a single soft instruction with no verification of the persisted file. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized, but the skill is ~185 lines with no bundle files, and the large Question Format section (labeled 'FR-UNIVERSAL.QA-FORMAT', suggesting a shared standard) is inlined wholesale when it clearly belongs in a separate reference file — matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'. Not a 2 since the remaining structure is genuinely clear and navigable, and not a 4 because the inline bulk is substantial. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |