Content
80%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 body is a lean, highly actionable reference with a concrete grep sweep and smell/fix table, well-organized into clear sections. Its main weakness is the sweep workflow lacking an explicit validation/re-verify checkpoint for a batch operation.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step to the sweep workflow, e.g. re-run the grep after fixes to confirm zero remaining violations before calling the skill clean.
Trim the prd-writing contrast paragraph in 'What a skill is, and isn't' to a single sentence referencing prd-writing, since the exception is already restated later.
Consider a one-line 'verify the three paired copies match' checkpoint after the sync guidance, since check_skill_pairs.py only flags some-but-not-all changes.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense with real information, a compact smell-to-fix table, and a lean copy-paste grep command; minor philosophical justifications (the prd-writing contrast paragraph) could be trimmed, keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable copy-paste grep sweep, a concrete smell/fix table with real example phrases, specific archive steps (research_old/), and a real script reference (scripts/check_skill_pairs.py) cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sweep is sequenced (run grep, read hits in context, fix) but lacks an explicit validate/re-verify checkpoint, and the grep sweep is a batch operation across skill trees, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A self-contained, well-sectioned document under ~50 lines with clear headers and no nested reference chains, only one-level contextual pointers to related skills; meets the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |