Content
70%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.
This is a well-engineered process skill with excellent workflow discipline — explicit gates, exact commands, validation loops, and anti-drift red flags — that scores near the top on actionability and workflow clarity. It is dragged down by token inefficiency (a duplicated flow graph, fork provenance, and general design wisdom Claude already knows) and by progressive-disclosure gaps, most notably an orphaned decision-template.md that the write step never points to.
Suggestions
Reference `references/decision-template.md` from the 'Write the Decision' checklist step and the Review section so the central artifact's structure is actually reachable — currently the template file is never mentioned in the body.
Cut the dot-graph Process Flow section (or move it to a reference file): it restates the Checklist and Phases tables almost line-for-line at a cost of ~50 lines of context.
Trim the Provenance/Divergence section to a few lines of attribution and move the seven-point divergence list into a reference file, and drop or compress 'Design for isolation and clarity', which restates general software-design knowledge Claude already has.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The operational core (path thresholds, commit gates, pathspec rule, artifact rules) is tight and imperative, but there is real padding: the ~50-line dot graph duplicates the Checklist section almost entirely, the Provenance/Divergence sections are fork meta-history with version numbers and dates outside any deprecated section, and "Design for isolation and clarity" explains software-design concepts Claude already knows. Mostly efficient with several sections that could be tightened or cut — fits 3 better than 2 (the majority earns its tokens) or 4 (the duplication and known-concept sections are more than minor). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete: exact commit subjects (`decision: propose <id> <title>`), the exact committing rule `git commit -m "<subject>" -- <exact paths written>`, the exact artifact path `docs/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-slug.md`, and precise slug/id rules. Falls short of 5 because the structure of the Decision document itself — the skill's central output — is never given: `references/decision-template.md` exists in the bundle but the "Write the Decision" step never points to it, leaving a minor but real gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Exemplary sequencing: classification before first question, per-path ordered checklists, a phase/gate table ("Each gate commits before the next phase begins"), explicit validation via self-review against `references/decision-review.md` plus mandatory human review, and feedback loops for error recovery (requested changes → `decision: revise` → re-review; "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path"). Explicit STOP points ("STOP and wait for an explicit yes") and the pathspec-only commit rule also guard the risky git operations, so no validation cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned and the one used reference (`references/decision-review.md`) is clearly signaled with path, purpose, and timing — but `references/decision-template.md` is present in the bundle and never referenced from the body, and the 350+ line monolith inlines content (provenance/divergence history, the full dot graph) that could live in reference files. The orphaned core template plus inlined peripheral content matches 3 better than 4's "minor organization gaps". | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |