Content
75%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-organized, appropriately lean instruction skill with concrete paths, conventions, and a clear output contract. The main improvement is removing the redundancy between 'Your Responsibilities' and 'When Reviewing a Proposal', and adding a brief worked example to make the guidance fully actionable. No bundle files are referenced, and none are needed at this size.
Suggestions
Merge 'Your Responsibilities' into 'When Reviewing a Proposal' — items 1, 2, and 4 restate the first three review questions almost verbatim and can be cut without losing information.
Add one short worked example under 'Output Format' showing a real placement decision (e.g. 'adding OAuth login → port in application/ports/input/, adapter in infrastructure/'), so the guidance is fully executable.
Tie the 'Alignment Check' checklist explicitly back to the four review questions (or state that each box must be justified in the Concerns section) to close the loop between the review procedure and the output contract.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — the layer tree, port paths, and dependency rules are project-specific facts, not general-knowledge padding. However, the 'Your Responsibilities' section substantially duplicates 'When Reviewing a Proposal' (design decisions ↔ layer question, pattern compliance ↔ pattern question, interface design ↔ interfaces question), which is trimmable redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: exact paths ('application/ports/output/', 'tsp/'), specific conventions ('Use cases have `execute()` method', 'Entities extend TypeSpec base types'), and a copy-paste-ready output template. It stops short of a 5 because there is no worked example of an actual placement recommendation or port definition. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The procedure is coherent: four numbered review questions followed by a structured output format that ends in an 'Alignment Check' checklist acting as a validation checkpoint. It lacks explicit sequencing rationale or feedback between question and output, and is not a single-action skill, so the simple-skill 5 does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist and none are needed; the single ~88-line file is cleanly sectioned with no content that clearly belongs in a separate file. It sits slightly above the lean single-file ideal (partly due to the duplicated responsibilities section), so it matches the good-structure anchor rather than the exemplary one. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |