Content
82%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-engineered, dense ruleset: exact formulas, numeric budgets and thresholds, worked examples, and a real one-level-deep reference make it highly actionable and verifiable. The main weakness is readability of the ROI unknown-value handling prose, which is overwritten relative to the crisp tables surrounding it, plus the absence of an explicit end-to-end workflow ordering.
Suggestions
Rewrite the ROI unknown-value paragraphs (Unknown-Value Ordering and the preceding paragraph) as a short numbered procedure or table; the current run-on sentences bury the decision rules that the rest of the document expresses cleanly.
Add a brief ordered workflow at the top (e.g., Design Doc ACs → candidate extraction → ROI scoring → lane/budget selection → skeleton → implementation → review) so the section sequence reads as an explicit process rather than a reference rulebook.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — no space is spent explaining what E2E testing or AAA structure is, and nearly every table (budgets, ROI scales, thresholds) carries project-specific rules Claude cannot know. However, the ROI unknown-value prose (e.g., 'When ROI can change candidate ranking, a lane threshold, or budget selection, return the exact missing product input and its decision effect when `test_value_context` has not yet supplied it') is convoluted and could be tightened, fitting anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'. It is clearly above anchor 3, which requires unnecessary explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete and executable: an exact ROI formula ('ROI Score = Business Value × User Frequency + Legal Requirement × 10 + Defect Detection'), exact numeric lane thresholds (ROI ≥ 20 / ROI > 50), a copy-paste-ready annotation template, an eight-row worked example table with computed scores and selection outcomes, and specific file-naming patterns. This matches anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'; per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized in an instruction-only skill when the guidance is this actionable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sections sequence coherently (test types and budgets → ROI ranking → journey definition → skeleton spec → review criteria), and the Review Criteria tables supply explicit checkpoints for verifying both skeletons and implementations. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit ordered procedure from Design Doc to selected/implemented tests and no validate-and-recover feedback loop; it exceeds anchor 3 because checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit. No destructive/batch-operation cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle structure is sound: the single reference (references/e2e-design.md) exists, is clearly signaled at the top ('See [references/e2e-design.md]... for UI Spec-driven E2E test candidate selection and browser test architecture'), and is one level deep. This fits anchor 4-5; it falls short of anchor 5 only because the ~200-line body inlines detailed material (ROI example table, EARS mapping, naming conventions) that could arguably live in references, though the core ruleset legitimately belongs in SKILL.md. It clearly exceeds anchor 3, whose references are poorly signaled. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |