Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured exploration skill with clear workflow steps, a concrete output template, and good separation of concerns via shared references. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (redundant references to shared doc sections, some unnecessary explanation) and the inability to verify the referenced shared files. The actionability is strong with the explicit markdown output format and comparison table structure.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated references to Section B/C from sdd-phase-common.md — mention the shared doc once at the top rather than re-referencing it in multiple sections.
Trim the 'What You Receive' and 'Understand the Request' sections, which largely describe things Claude can infer from context.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy — the persistence/retrieval contract is explained multiple times with references to shared docs, and the orchestrator gate preamble adds overhead. Some sections like 'What You Receive' and 'Understand the Request' explain things Claude could infer. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a concrete output template in markdown format, a clear comparison table structure for analyzing options, specific artifact naming conventions (e.g., `sdd/{change-name}/explore`), and explicit step-by-step instructions. The guidance is specific enough to be directly executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit steps from loading skills through returning structured analysis. Step 5 is marked as MANDATORY with bold emphasis, and the rules section provides clear constraints. The conditional logic (named change vs standalone) is well-articulated. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references shared files (`skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md`, `skills/_shared/openspec-convention.md`) for Sections A-D, which is good progressive disclosure in principle. However, since no bundle files are provided, we cannot verify these references resolve correctly, and the repeated references to sections A/B/C/D across multiple places create navigation friction without being able to see the actual content. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |