Content
78%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 body handles routing decisions while all document content is properly delegated to one-level-deep reference templates. The main improvement room is tightening a few ornate criterion sentences and deduplicating the template link listings.
Suggestions
Tighten the abstract criterion language (e.g. "one evident repository-supported implementation within one responsibility boundary") with a concrete example or two, since these determine the Small/Medium/Large classification that drives the whole routing decision.
Deduplicate the template links — the Storage Locations table and the References section both link all six templates; keeping one clearly-signaled index would trim tokens without losing navigation.
Add a brief validation or re-classification step for edge cases (e.g. what to do when repository evidence contradicts the initially chosen Structural Scale), which would close the workflow-clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and purpose-built — no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — but phrases like "An unfilled section becomes a guess made later by the consumer named below, with no record of what was assumed" and "Counts of files, consumers, nesting levels, states, steps, and asynchronous operations are supporting evidence rather than ADR criteria" are more ornate than needed, and the six template links appear twice (Storage Locations table and the References section). Mostly lean with minor trims available, so it fits the 4 anchor rather than the every-token-earns-its-place 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: an exact creation decision matrix, numbered path construction ("1. Select the base path from Structural Scale. 2. Insert an applicable UI Spec immediately before the Design Doc."), two explicit ADR filters, and a storage table with literal paths and naming conventions ("ADR-[4-digits]-[title].md"). It stays at 4 rather than 5 because judgment criteria like "one evident repository-supported implementation within one responsibility boundary" require interpretation rather than being fully copy-paste decidable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is clearly sequenced — base path selection, UI Spec insertion, ADR batch insertion — with an explicit approval checkpoint ("Continue after PRD approval") and a check-first step ("check existing ADRs first"). It misses the 5 anchor because there are no validation/feedback steps (e.g. how to re-classify scale when evidence is ambiguous), though the skill is non-destructive so no cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a pure routing overview and every detail document lives in a bundle file referenced exactly one level deep via clearly signaled links (Storage Locations table plus a consolidated References section listing all six verified templates in references/). Content is appropriately split with easy navigation, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |