Content
67%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.
The body is a well-structured, actionable instruction guide with a clear workflow, output template, and illustrative examples. Its main weakness is conciseness: several sections restate guidance already given elsewhere.
Suggestions
Consolidate the "Rules" section with the opening blockquote to remove the duplicated NO IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS / describe-don't-prescribe guidance.
Merge "Encouraging Pushback" into Step 4 (Leave Room for Discussion) since both cover open questions and inviting backend input.
Tighten the "Good vs. Bad Requests" examples from three pairs to one or two, keeping only the most illustrative contrast.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient but contains noticeable redundancy: the "Rules" section restates the opening blockquote ("NO IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS—don't specify endpoints, methods, field names") and "Encouraging Pushback" restates Step 4's open questions. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete 4-step workflow, a copy-paste markdown output template, and good/bad request examples; as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized, though the workflow prompts are questions rather than commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-4 are clearly sequenced and the "After Backend Responds" section adds a feedback loop for updating the doc; no explicit validation checkpoints, but the skill is non-destructive so the validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections (Point, ownership table, workflow, output format, examples, rules) with no nested references; it is a self-contained single file over 50 lines, so the simple-skill 5 exception does not strictly apply. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |