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.
The body is an efficient, dense, and highly actionable phased workflow with explicit verification and approval checkpoints, well-anchored to a real reference bundle file. It sits just below top marks on all dimensions due to small duplications across sections, template-style code with placeholders, no explicit failure-recovery loop, and some inlined detail that could live in references.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the repeated "read on popover open, never in the background (#204)" rule by stating it once in Phase 3b and letting the checklist reference it, trimming tokens without losing the constraint.
Add a brief recovery note in Phase 4 (e.g., if the full xcodebuild run or check-docs fails: fix and re-run before screenshots/docs) to close the missing error-recovery loop.
Move the card styling checklist and the Phase 2 reader/definition specifics into a second reference file (e.g., references/card-style.md), keeping SKILL.md as a leaner overview with well-signaled one-level references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and telegraphic — tables, checklists, and code carry project-specific facts with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. A few points are repeated verbatim across sections ("never in the background, #204" appears in the flow diagram, Phase 3b, and the checklist; the card styling rules appear both in code comments and the checklist), which are minor trims short of "every token earns its place". | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete: exact file locations, a Swift value/card template, a test-naming rule, real commands (`tuist generate`, `xcodebuild test ...`, `scripts/demo-screenshots.sh`, `gen-docs.py && check-docs.py --strict`). The code blocks use placeholder names (`{Name}Report`) and elided bodies (`{ ... }`), so they are adaptable templates rather than fully copy-paste-ready, keeping them just below the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced (Phase 0–4 with a diagram and per-phase checklists) and includes explicit checkpoints: user approval via `AskUserQuestion` in Phase 0, TDD red→green in Phase 1, and a full verification phase with the complete test run and strict docs check. What is missing against the 5 anchor is an explicit error-recovery loop (what to do when the test run or docs check fails is left implicit). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: a well-signaled, verified one-level bundle reference (`references/daily-usage-pattern.md`) introduced early as the reference implementation, plus clearly labeled sections and per-phase checklists. Some detail-rich material (card styling checklist, reader/definition specifics) is inlined in the ~250-line body where a second reference file could carry it, which is the minor organization gap of the 4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |