Content
96%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 concise, actionable spec with a clear workflow and a ready-to-use output contract, scoring well across all dimensions. The only gap is the dangling DESIGN.md reference with no matching bundle file.
Suggestions
Either add a DESIGN.md bundle file or remove the 'Read DESIGN.md' step so no reference points to a missing file.
Consider noting which design-system sections (color, typography, layout, components) the invoice must reflect, since the frontmatter declares design_system.requires: true.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — a one-line goal, a tight workflow, a copy-paste output contract, and a single print note — with no concept over-explanation or padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete layout spec (column names 'description / qty / unit / amount', right-aligned totals block, payment instructions) plus a complete artifact output contract make the guidance copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 3-step sequence (read design, layout, print stylesheet) for a simple single-purpose generation skill with no destructive/batch operation; the simple-skill exception permits 5 for an unambiguous single action. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Workflow and Output-contract sections and under 50 lines with no bundle files, but the body references DESIGN.md with no accompanying file present, a minor unresolved navigation gap that keeps it below a clean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |