Content
71%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-structured, actionable design-exploration skill with a clear workflow and good organization. The main weakness is redundancy between the comparison step and the Evaluation Criteria section.
Suggestions
Merge or trim the 'Evaluation Criteria' section, since interface simplicity, depth, and implementation efficiency are already laid out in step 4's comparison criteria.
Tighten the preamble ('Based on Design It Twice from A Philosophy of Software Design') to one clause so it motivates the approach without padding.
Consider adding a brief note on how many designs to present by default and when to stop iterating, to make the workflow even more deterministic.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the 'Evaluation Criteria' section largely restates criteria already covered in step 4 (interface simplicity, depth, implementation efficiency), creating avoidable token duplication. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete sub-agent prompt template with per-agent constraints and a specified output format, plus actionable anti-patterns; minor gaps remain as it is instruction-only with no literal runnable code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence with numbered sub-steps and a requirements checklist; no validation checkpoints are needed for this non-destructive design-exploration skill, so the sequence is solid with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file with no external references needed and well-organized section headers, matching the rubric's allowance for compact skills to score 5 on well-organized structure alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |