Content
68%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 solid, actionable template skill with a concrete copy-paste spec scaffold and a well-signaled reference file. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit workflow for producing and validating a specification.
Suggestions
Add a short numbered workflow for producing a spec (e.g., 1. Gather requirements, 2. Draft design, 3. Add acceptance criteria, 4. Review with stakeholders) so the process is sequenced rather than implied by section order.
Trim the inline template to a minimal starter and rely on references/template.md for the full version, reducing duplication between the body and the reference.
Include a lightweight validation/checkpoint step (e.g., 'Confirm every P0 requirement has acceptance criteria and a test') to add a feedback loop to the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely lean template content with a tight Do/Don't list and no over-explanation of known concepts, though the inline template partially duplicates references/template.md, a minor redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a complete, copy-paste-ready spec scaffold with filled structure (tables, SQL, API examples, phased plan); it is a placeholder skeleton rather than a fully worked example, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sectioned template with an implementation timeline, testing strategy, and success checklist gives a clear structure, but there is no explicit step sequence for producing a spec and no validation/feedback loop. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Body signals a one-level-deep reference ('See references/template.md...') with a bulleted summary of its contents, and the referenced file exists; the inlined full template creates mild overlap with that reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |