Content
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is excessively verbose, repeating the same domain examples (Customer, Ticketing, Reporting) at least 5 times across different sections. The content explains concepts Claude already understands (what a business domain is, how to group related things) and could be reduced by 70%+ without losing actionable information. The fitness function code and namespace refactoring tables are the strongest elements, but they're buried in repetitive content.
Suggestions
Reduce content to ~100 lines by eliminating repeated examples - show the Customer/Ticketing domain mapping once, not in every section
Remove explanations of basic concepts Claude already knows (what a domain is, why grouping matters) and focus on the specific heuristics and decision criteria that are unique to this skill
Split output format templates, fitness functions, and implementation notes (Node.js/Java) into separate reference files to improve progressive disclosure
Add concrete validation criteria instead of subjective checks - e.g., 'if >50% of a component's dependencies are outside its domain, it may be misassigned' rather than 'check cohesion'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. The same examples (Customer Domain, Ticketing Domain, etc.) are repeated 5+ times across different sections. Concepts like 'what a domain is' and 'business capability grouping' are over-explained. The skill is ~400 lines when it could be ~100. Much content restates what Claude already knows about organizing code by business domain. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides some concrete examples of namespace mappings and directory structures, plus fitness function code snippets. However, the core guidance is largely descriptive ('analyze component responsibilities', 'identify business capabilities') rather than providing executable commands or tools. The fitness function code is useful but not tied to any specific tooling or execution context. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-phase process is clearly sequenced and includes a validation phase (Phase 3) with a checklist. However, the validation is subjective ('check cohesion', 'verify boundaries') rather than providing concrete automated validation steps. The 'Get Stakeholder Validation' step is repeated in multiple phases without adding clarity. Missing concrete feedback loops for error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline including detailed output format examples, implementation notes for multiple languages, fitness functions, best practices, common patterns, and domain size guidelines. Much of this could be split into separate reference files. No bundle files exist to support progressive disclosure. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |