Content
93%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 well-architected router: concise, dense with concrete actionable mappings, clearly sequenced with an explicit ambiguity checkpoint, and cleanly splitting detail into one-level-deep reference files that all exist. The only minor gap is that validation for the destructive code→design Figma writes lives in companion skills rather than being summarized here.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean router that assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what Figma or SwiftUI is, and the six shared-context points are dense with concrete mappings, tool args, and API names where every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable for an instruction/router skill: exact tool args ('clientLanguages: "swift"', 'clientFrameworks: "swiftui"'), a concrete URL-parsing algorithm (fileKey, replace '-' with ':' in nodeId), exact API call ('figma.util.getSfSymbolCharacter(name)'), and explicit token→SwiftUI color mappings. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence — pick direction, resolve ambiguity by asking the user (explicit checkpoint), load shared context, then route to the direction-specific reference and named companion skills — with validation for the destructive code→design write delegated to explicitly named companion skills (figma-generate-design / figma-generate-library) rather than restated here. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Exemplary one-level-deep structure: the body is a concise overview/router, with both referenced docs (references/design-to-code.md, references/code-to-design.md) present as real files and clearly signaled in two navigation tables. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |