Content
90%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 tight, highly actionable instruction skill with a clear multi-step workflow, concrete templates, and a helpful mistakes checklist. It is concise and well-structured, with only minor room to add an explicit verification checkpoint and avoid hardcoding the ADR index.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., after step 4, verify the AGENTS.md row resolves to the new file and the ADR matches the 20-50 line style) to close the feedback-loop gap.
Replace the hardcoded existing-ADR list (0001-0008) with guidance to derive it from `ls docs/adr/` to avoid stale content as the ADR set grows.
Consider a brief "split vs. single ADR" decision rule with one concrete example to make the scope step more executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive ("Keep ADRs concise. Match the existing 20-50 line style. Do not add a status field.") with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready guidance: a concrete command (`ls docs/adr/`), an exact filename pattern (`0009-my-decision.md`), a full ADR markdown template, a table-row format for AGENTS.md, and good/bad trigger examples. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence (confirm scope, determine number, write, register) is present with the `ls` check as a checkpoint and a Common Mistakes table acting as a review checklist, but there is no explicit validate-then-fix feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single SKILL.md with well-organized sections (When To Create, Steps, Common Mistakes) and no unnecessary external references; the hardcoded existing-ADR list (0001-0008) is inline content that could go stale, keeping it just short of the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |