Content
27%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 a descriptive textbook outline of SPARC that Claude could largely reconstruct from the acronym alone, with no executable guidance for how to run or verify any phase. Its one strength is a clear phase-transition workflow with named quality gates, though those gates lack any verification criteria. A stray duplicate YAML frontmatter block with an inconsistent name and non-executable pseudo-commands further degrades both conciseness and actionability.
Suggestions
Replace descriptive bullet lists with executable guidance: for each phase, give the concrete steps/commands to run, and define each quality gate as a checkable criterion (e.g., what 'Specification Complete' verifies and how to verify it) so the workflow has real validation checkpoints.
Cut or move content Claude already knows — the per-phase bullet lists, SPARC acronym explanation, and metrics lists — to reference files or delete them, keeping SKILL.md as a lean orchestration overview.
Fix or remove the stray second YAML block: it duplicates metadata under an inconsistent name ('sparc-coord') and contains non-executable pseudo-commands (memory_store, memory_search) that provide no actionable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~185-line body is padded with generic software-engineering knowledge Claude already has ('Detailed requirements gathering', 'User story creation', 'Iterative improvement', 'Documentation finalization') plus a stray duplicate YAML block. This matches level 2's 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'; it is not level 1 because it is an outline rather than extensive prose explanation of basics, but well below level 3's 'mostly efficient'. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There is no executable code, command, or concrete procedure anywhere — the quality gates are named with vague criteria ('All requirements documented', 'Code quality met') and the 'Memory Integration' hooks reference non-existent pseudo-commands (memory_store, memory_search). This matches the level-1 anchor 'no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs' and exceeds level 2's bar of 'high-level hints' toward actual steps, which are absent. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The phase sequence is clearly laid out ('Specification → Quality Gate 1 → Pseudocode → ... → Final Review → Deployment') with named gates and sub-agents, but validation is only implicit — no gate specifies what to check or what failure looks like. This fits level 3's 'Steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit' — better than level 2's rough/gappy sequence, but below level 4 which requires most checkpoints with concrete verification. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has reasonable section structure (Purpose, Phases, Workflow, Coordination, Best Practices) but is a single monolithic file with zero references to any bundle file — no reference files exist in the skill. This matches level 3's 'Some structure but could be better organized'; it is not level 4/5 because outline material (phase details, metrics) is inlined where a lean overview with separate reference files is warranted, and it does not qualify for the under-50-line simple-skill exception. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 9 / 20 Passed |