Content
53%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 appropriately brief and contains a genuine verification checkpoint, but it reads more like a prompt than a skill: no plan template or example, a cryptic "(research/command)" tool reference, and a muddled opening instruction. Tightening the sequence and adding one concrete plan structure example would raise actionability and workflow clarity substantially.
Suggestions
Add a minimal plan template or example showing the expected .md structure for `.claude/plans/{plan_name_folder}` (sections, to-do format) so output is concrete rather than guessed.
Clarify "(research/command)" — name the exact tool, command syntax, or task-spawning mechanism Claude should use to verify facts.
Rewrite "Reading the discoveries, during the research, make a plan..." as an ordered step list (1. read discoveries; 2. draft plan; 3. identify gaps; 4. ask user; 5. verify via research tasks; 6. proceed) to fix the muddled sequence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and directive with no concept explanations Claude wouldn't know, but the opening sentence ("You should be skeptical, thorough, and work collaboratively with the user to produce high-quality technical specifications") is padded posturing that could be trimmed. This matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances of over-explanation) rather than 5 where every token earns its place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Aside from one concrete convention ("make a plan in `.claude/plans/{plan_name_folder}` using a `.md` file style"), the guidance is high-level direction with no executable commands, plan template, or example; "(research/command)" is cryptic and unexplained. This matches anchor 2 (minimal concrete guidance, missing the specific steps to execute) rather than 3, which requires more substantive concrete detail. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The bullet list lays out a rough process with one explicit checkpoint ("Only proceed once you've verified the facts yourself"), but the sequence is poorly defined — "Reading the discoveries, during the research, make a plan" is confusingly ordered and steps like how to spawn research tasks are unspecified. Anchor 3 (steps listed but gaps) fits better than 4, which requires a clear, well-defined sequence. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple sub-50-line skill needing no external reference files, and none are bundled, so the per-rubric simple-skill exception applies. It has a heading and organized directive list, but the interleaved narrative paragraphs (e.g., the plan-path instruction stuck mid-body) leave minor organization gaps, matching anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |