Content
33%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 well-organized but shallow overview: it explains what a Design Sprint is and when to use it, yet never instructs how to run one. The five-day workflow — the entire point of the skill — is absent, leaving Claude with decision criteria but no executable process.
Suggestions
Add a concrete Day 1–5 workflow section (e.g. Monday: map the problem and choose a target; Tuesday: sketch competing solutions; Wednesday: decide and write a storyboard; Thursday: build the prototype; Friday: test with 5 customers) so the skill actually instructs execution.
Add facilitation specifics: how to run each exercise, the Decider/Facilitator roles, timeboxes, and how to synthesize Friday's test results into a go/no-go recommendation.
Trim the "Domain Context" boilerplate, the company name-dropping, and the generic explanation of what a Design Sprint is — Claude already knows this — and merge "Resources" and "Further Reading" into one section under a consistent heading hierarchy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | "This skill implements a proven product management framework... combines best practices from industry leaders" is pure padding, "it has been used by teams at Slack, Uber, Airbnb, LEGO, the New York Times" is name-dropping, and "A Design Sprint is a five-day process..." re-explains a well-known framework Claude already knows. The When to Use / When Not to Use bullets are lean, so it is mostly efficient — anchor 3, not 2, because padded passages are the minority. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The when-to-use criteria and input requirements are concrete, but the core task — running the sprint — has no executable guidance: no day-by-day agenda, no exercises, no facilitation steps, no prototype/test instructions. This matches anchor 2 (high-level hints, specific steps missing) rather than 1, because the decision guidance and input list are genuinely actionable. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The framework is defined as a five-day sequence ("By Friday, you'll have tested a realistic prototype"), yet the body never presents any sequence of steps — no Day 1–5 breakdown, no order of operations, no checkpoints or validation. This is anchor 1 (steps missing, no sequence); anchor 2 would require at least a rough sequence of the actual process. | 1 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so this is scored on body structure: lean, well-organized sections with clear headers and no content that should be split out to separate files. It falls short of 5 due to minor organization gaps — the heading hierarchy is inconsistent (## Domain Context and ## Input Requirements precede the top-level # Design Sprint title) and "Resources" and "Further Reading" are two fragmented trailing sections. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |