Content
38%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 lean, well-sectioned overview whose substance is entirely missing: it defers all concrete material to a playbook file that is not in the bundle, leaving only abstract instruction steps. The result is a skill that reads well but executes poorly — no decision criteria, examples, or validation checkpoints, and a broken reference stated twice.
Suggestions
Fix the broken reference: `resources/implementation-playbook.md` does not exist in the bundle — either create the playbook containing the promised patterns, checklists, and templates, or inline the essential guidance (pattern-selection criteria, example module boundaries and dependency rules) into SKILL.md.
Make the instruction steps actionable: replace 'Select an architecture pattern that fits the domain complexity' with concrete decision criteria (e.g., a mapping of domain complexity / team size / coupling pain points to Clean vs. Hexagonal vs. DDD), and add an example dependency-rule or module-boundary snippet plus a worked migration checklist with validation steps.
Remove duplication: the reference is stated twice (end of Instructions and in Resources) and the intro paragraph repeats the frontmatter description verbatim — keep one pointer to the playbook and drop the echoed description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but it is not tight: the intro sentence echoes the frontmatter description nearly verbatim, the 'Use/Do not use' lists duplicate the description's triggers, and the reference to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` is stated twice (in Instructions and again in Resources). This matches 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than a 4, where only minor trimming would be needed — three separate redundancies are present. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The four steps are high-level hints — 'Clarify domain boundaries, constraints, and scalability targets', 'Select an architecture pattern that fits the domain complexity', 'Define module boundaries, interfaces, and dependency rules' — with no decision criteria for choosing among Clean/Hexagonal/DDD, no example boundary or dependency-rule structures, and no concrete migration steps. This matches the 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute' anchor; it is not a 3 because even the details it promises ('detailed patterns, checklists, and templates') live in a referenced file that does not exist in the bundle, leaving no concrete material at all. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four numbered steps form a coherent sequence (clarify → select → define → provide migration/validation), matching 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'. Validation appears only as a deliverable to 'provide', never as an actual checkpoint in the workflow. Not a 2 because, unlike the 2-anchor, the sequence is present and each step maps to a distinct, sensibly ordered phase; not a 4 because the steps themselves are vaguely defined and no verification checkpoint is explicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Scored against the actual bundle structure as the guidelines direct: there are no `references/`, `scripts/`, `assets/`, or `resources/` files, so `resources/implementation-playbook.md` — to which the skill defers all detailed patterns, checklists, and templates — does not exist. The on-paper structure (clear sections, one clearly signaled one-level reference) would suggest a 4, but the bundle delivers nothing beyond the overview, so the skill is neither self-contained nor appropriately split; this lands noticeably below the midpoint. Not a 1 because the body itself is navigable with clear headers and the reference is signaled, not buried. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |