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.
The body is concise, well-structured, and actionable via a template plus worked example. Its main weakness is workflow clarity — the steps lack explicit validation or quality checkpoints before producing stories.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/review checkpoint (e.g., 'verify each story satisfies INVEST and has 4-6 testable acceptance criteria before finalizing') to the step-by-step process.
Tighten redundancy: the 3 C's and INVEST criteria are restated across the description, step list, and deliverables — consolidate to one place.
Clarify the output format contract (e.g., markdown schema or per-story block) so generation is copy-paste ready rather than implied by the example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, sectioned content (steps, template, example) with little explanation of concepts Claude already knows; minor redundancy between the step list and the 3 C's/INVEST restatements keeps it off 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | A concrete story template and a worked acceptance-criteria example give mostly executable guidance; it stops short of fully copy-paste-ready output specs for all common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step process is sequenced but has no validation or feedback checkpoints; though this is non-destructive authoring, the sequence lacks explicit quality gates. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a single one-level-deep external link; no bundle files exist to split further, and the body slightly exceeds the 50-line simple-skill threshold. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |