Content
86%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 tight, highly actionable body that gives concrete tool calls and clear scenario-based workflows with good section structure. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit validation feedback loop in the change workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no padding, no explaining what an ADR or architectural decision is — with only minor framings like the opening restatement that could be trimmed, placing it just below the fully-lean 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, copy-paste-ready invocations for all four get_why modes (e.g. get_why(query="why is auth using JWT?")) plus exact CLI commands (repowise decision health, /repowise:why, repowise decision add), fully covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'When about to make an architectural change' section gives a clear numbered sequence with a human checkpoint (present decisions to the user before proceeding) and a fallback branch, but lacks an explicit validate-then-retry feedback loop, sitting just below the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and has no bundle files; it is organized into well-signaled sections (When the user asks..., When about to make..., When called with no query) so the simple-skill exception applies and structure alone earns a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |