Content
52%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 skill's guidance is genuinely actionable — a clear interactive workflow, concrete question payloads, complete section templates, and validation checklists. However, it is severely bloated (52KB, ~1480 lines) with trilingual duplication, worked example data, time-sensitive dates, and explanations of known concepts, and it makes no use of progressive disclosure: everything is inlined in SKILL.md with zero reference files.
Suggestions
Move the 20 section templates, the per-language prompt scripts, and the header-translation table into references/ files (e.g. references/section-templates.md, references/interview-scripts.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview pointing to them — this addresses both the progressive_disclosure and conciseness failures.
Cut content Claude already knows: the security best-practices checklist (input validation, SQL injection, XSS), compliance definitions (GDPR, PCI DSS, LGPD), and the glossary-style explanations — retain only the skill-specific rules (e.g. 'Security is MANDATORY for payments/auth/PII').
Remove fabricated time-sensitive data (hardcoded dates like '2026-02-04', 'ETA: 2026-02-10', status emojis in 'complete' roadmap rows) from the templates, and replace the duplicated English/Portuguese/Spanish blocks with the single translation rule ('generate in the user's language') plus one short example.
Fix the workflow inconsistencies: reconcile the project-size section maps with the 1-20 section numbering, and renumber 'Critical Sections' (8-11) as a coherent continuation of the section list.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At ~1480 lines, the body is heavily padded: full trilingual prompt scripts (English/Portuguese/Spanish for every workflow step), a section-header translation table, 20 fully worked templates filled with fake Stripe-specific data and time-sensitive dates ('2026-02-04', 'ETA: 2026-02-10'), plus explanations of concepts Claude already knows (input validation, SQL injection prevention, GDPR/PCI DSS definitions). It is noticeably beyond the 'several unnecessary explanations' of a 3, though much of the bulk is template material rather than tutorial prose, keeping it above a 1. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete and executable in most places: exact AskQuestion JSON payloads, copy-paste markdown section templates, per-project-type section matrices, validation checklists, and BAD/GOOD anti-pattern pairs. Not a 5 because some guidance is environment-specific and unverifiable ('AskQuestion tool', 'Confluence Assistant skill') and the templates remain placeholder skeletons rather than complete worked examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step interactive workflow (gather -> validate mandatory info -> check critical sections -> offer suggested sections -> generate -> offer publishing) is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checklists and 'if missing, ask' feedback branches. Not a 5 due to inconsistencies: the project-size maps ('Use sections 1-11, 15, 18' then 'Offer: Success Metrics', which is section 12) conflict with the section numbering, and critical sections are numbered 8-11 under a separate heading. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist at all; the ~1000 lines of section templates and trilingual prompt scripts are exactly the content that belongs in references/ files, and the only 'References' section is external URLs. Headers make it navigable (above a 1), but disclosure failure is near-total — virtually the whole body should be split into one-level-deep reference files rather than 'some inline content that could be separate' as at a 3. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |