Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, well-structured into clear modes, and mostly actionable with specific memory commands and templates. Weak spots are the placeholder-filled entry template and the absence of explicit validation/confirmation checkpoints for the destructive resolution and promotion steps.
Suggestions
Flesh out the entry template with at least one fully worked example (filled frontmatter + body) so the format is copy-paste ready rather than placeholder prose.
Add an explicit validate-then-confirm checkpoint for Mode E (resolution) and Mode F (promotion), e.g. confirm the source item exists and the destination slug is free before moving/creating, and re-list the backlog to verify the change.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it states the storage path, gives terse severity rules, and uses compact mode blocks without explaining what tech debt or memory commands are. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete memory commands (memory_search, memory_tree, memory_read), a frontmatter template, slug rules, and output formatting, but the entry template is filled with placeholder prose (<Brief title>, <What the debt is...>) rather than fully copy-paste-ready content, leaving some details to be filled in. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Modes A–F give a clear sequence and Mode A includes a duplicate-check checkpoint, but destructive/batch operations (resolution move, promotion) lack explicit validate-then-confirm feedback loops, capping workflow clarity at 2 per the rubric. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single self-contained file (~100 body lines) with no bundle files and well-organized mode/section headings, so under the simple-skills note progressive disclosure scores 3 without external references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |