Content
71%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: the routing logic is concrete and followable via tables, numbered filters, and exact paths, and progressive disclosure is exemplary with all template references resolving to real files one level deep. The main cost is prose density — long rationale-laden sentences in the document descriptions and decision sections could be tightened without losing decision content.
Suggestions
Tighten the "What Each Document Fixes" section: cut the motivational rationale (e.g., "An unfilled section becomes a guess made later by the consumer named below, with no record of what was assumed") and the boundary statements repeated across entries, keeping only the routing-relevant criteria.
Add one worked example of the routing decision — e.g., a sample change classified through Structural Scale, the ADR filters, and the resulting document path — to make the abstract criteria ("when those decisions remain open") concrete.
Convert the dense multi-clause sentences in "What Each Document Fixes" into short scannable rules (e.g., a belongs-in/belongs-elsewhere mini-table per document) to reduce re-reading.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense decision criteria rather than concept explanation, but motivational rationale ("An unfilled section becomes a guess made later by the consumer named below, with no record of what was assumed") and long multi-clause sentences with repeated boundary statements across the "What Each Document Fixes" entries could be significantly tightened. Matches 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened), not 2 since no basic concepts are explained, not 4 since the padding exceeds minor instances. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, followable guidance throughout: the Creation Decision Matrix, Structural Scale conditions table, two numbered ADR filters, and Storage Locations with exact paths and naming conventions (e.g., `docs/adr/`, `ADR-[4-digits]-[title].md`). Not 5 because no worked examples (e.g., a sample change classified as Medium) are given and some criteria remain abstract ("when those decisions remain open"). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "Build one path in this order: 1. Select the base path… 2. Insert an applicable UI Spec… 3. …ADR batch" gives an explicit sequence with a checkpoint ("Continue after PRD approval"). Not 3 since the sequence is explicit rather than implicit; not 5 because there is no validation or re-check step for the scale classification. No destructive or batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body declares its own scope ("This file holds the routing decision… What to write inside one is defined by its template") and cleanly delegates per-document content to six templates in references/, all of which exist and are referenced one level deep via both the Storage Locations table and the References section. Exemplary overview-plus-references structure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |