Content
77%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 well-structured instruction-only skill: clear review/generate modes, explicit phase gates with validation checkpoints and feedback loops, and exemplary progressive disclosure into four existing one-level references. The main weakness is token efficiency — authoring-process meta (quality checklist, TDD notes, a non-existent tile.json) and repeated counters inflate the body without helping the executing agent.
Suggestions
Remove or relocate the 'Quality Checklist' and TDD/attribution process notes to an authoring doc: items like 'tile.json present and correct' (no such file in the bundle) and 'writing-skills TDD baselines passed' are skill-maintenance meta, not task guidance, and cost significant tokens.
Deduplicate the rationalization counter ('Talking about the solution first? Delete the draft and restart with the pain. No exceptions.') which appears nearly verbatim in both 'How to use this skill' and 'Story Building', and fold the REFACTOR hardening bullets that repeat body rules into story-framework.md's counter table.
For abstract directives like 'Plan 80% non-promotional presence' and 'Amplify TAB/customer voices', cite the specific reference section that operationalizes them (as done elsewhere: 'the 3 principles and the exact 3 diagnostic questions in `references/tab-playbook.md`').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The task guidance is mostly tight ("Run it against every one of the 12 mistakes... Flag each violation with the exact 'Why bad'"), but the body carries noticeable padding: the 'Quality Checklist' is skill-authoring meta ("tile.json present and correct", "writing-skills TDD baselines passed"), the TDD attribution note and REFACTOR provenance serve the executing agent poorly, and the "Delete the draft... No exceptions" counter appears twice. Mostly efficient with unnecessary sections that could be trimmed fits anchor 3 better than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific instruction guidance throughout: mode-specific procedures ("Audit any recruitment email... against the 3 principles and the exact 3 diagnostic questions"), exact gates ("Only after 5+ diverse TAB members have validated"), and specifics deferred to named reference files that exist. Minor gaps: some directives remain abstract ("Plan 80% non-promotional presence", "Amplify TAB/customer voices") without pointing to the reference section that operationalizes them. Anchor 4 fits; not 5 because a few instructions describe rather than instruct. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-area pipeline is explicitly sequenced with a dedicated 'Phase Gates' section of validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "If the draft talks about features or the company as hero, return to Story Building" and "No public presence or launch material may be generated from an unvalidated story", plus the REFACTOR hardening for pressure scenarios. Clear sequence, explicit validation steps, and error-recovery loops match anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an overview with four clearly signaled one-level-deep load blockquotes ("load `references/story-framework.md`" etc.), each stating exactly what it contains; all four referenced files exist in references/ and are the right size for their role, with provenance split into attribution.md. Clear overview, well-signaled single-level references, easy navigation — anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |