Content
68%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 concise, actionable sprint-planning workflow with a useful output template, but it lacks an explicit validation checkpoint for the batch story-selection step and has a slightly off-topic further-reading link. Ordering also places the sprint-goal definition after the summary template that already contains it.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after story selection — e.g., 'Verify total committed points ≤ available capacity and that all flagged dependencies are sequenced before finalizing the plan.'
Reorder step 6 (Define the sprint goal) before the summary template in step 5, or fold it into the template, so the goal is defined before the summary that already contains a 'Sprint Goal' line.
Remove the generic 'Think step by step.' line; it adds no skill-specific guidance Claude would not already apply, and replace the tangential Further Reading link with a sprint-planning-relevant resource or drop it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean bullet-point guidance with a compact output template and no padding about concepts Claude already knows; only minor trimmable elements like 'Think step by step.' keep it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout — 'reserve 15-20% buffer', 'average story points per sprint from last 3 sprints', 'Stop adding stories when capacity is reached' — plus a copy-ready summary template, with only minor gaps (no explicit capacity formula). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-6 are clearly numbered and sequenced, but validation is only implicit (e.g., flagging refinement, stopping at capacity) with no explicit checkpoint verifying committed points ≤ capacity or that dependencies are resolved before finalizing the plan. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Context, Instructions, and Further Reading with no nested references and no bundles to navigate; the single Further Reading link is somewhat tangential (a product-owner vs product-manager article), a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |