The description excels at specificity and distinctiveness, naming exact components, flows, and events in a way that clearly carves out a unique niche. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness, and the trigger terms are heavily project-specific jargon that may not match how a user would naturally phrase their request.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create or scaffold a registration flow, multi-step form wizard, or stepper-based onboarding component.'

Include more natural trigger terms alongside the project-specific ones, such as 'registration wizard', 'multi-step registration', 'onboarding flow', or 'stepper form' to improve discoverability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple specific concrete actions: scaffolding a RegistrationFlowSkill orchestrator component, wrapping a Stepper system, guiding through named multi-step MFE forms (PartySearch → PartyRegistration → DocumentPicture), executing a sequential backend orchestration chain, and emitting onResultData.	3 / 3
Completeness	The description clearly answers 'what does this do' with detailed specifics about the component and its behavior, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance explaining when Claude should select this skill.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant domain-specific keywords like 'RegistrationFlowSkill', 'Stepper', 'MFE forms', 'PartySearch', 'PartyRegistration', 'DocumentPicture', and 'onResultData', but these are highly project-specific jargon rather than natural terms a user would say. A user might say 'registration flow', 'multi-step form', or 'stepper wizard' but many of the terms here are internal component names.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is highly specific to a particular project's architecture with named components (RegistrationFlowSkill, PartySearch, PartyRegistration, DocumentPicture, onResultData), making it very unlikely to conflict with other skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Implementation

62%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-structured architectural specification with excellent workflow clarity and a useful data flow diagram. Its main weaknesses are the lack of executable code examples (everything is described in prose rather than shown) and some verbosity from restating rules across multiple sections. The skill would benefit significantly from concrete TypeScript code snippets for at least the types file and the service file pattern.

Suggestions

Add executable TypeScript code examples for at least the types file (Props, AccumulatedPayload, Result interfaces) and the service file skeleton with the sequential await pattern — these are the most critical pieces for correct implementation.

Consolidate repeated rules (sequential orchestration, no React in service file, Component Folder Pattern) into a single location rather than restating them in Steps 3, 4, Hard Rules, and the Goal section.

Consider splitting the detailed SDD template and the Stepper import reference table into separate referenced files to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main skill's length.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is thorough but verbose in places — it explains concepts like what a Smart component is, restates rules multiple times (e.g., sequential orchestration is mentioned in Steps 3, 4, Hard Rules, and Data Flow), and includes tables and sections that could be consolidated. However, most content is domain-specific and not general knowledge Claude would already have.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides detailed architectural guidance with specific file names, interface shapes, state management decisions, and a clear data flow diagram. However, it lacks any executable code examples — no actual TypeScript snippets for the types file, the steps builder, the service file, or the component. Everything is described in prose rather than shown as copy-paste-ready code, making it closer to a specification than an actionable skill.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced (types → steps → service → component → barrel), with explicit validation rules (error propagation, sequential await, finish handler success/failure paths). The data flow diagram provides an excellent visual summary, and the finish handler includes a clear feedback loop for error recovery (show error, don't call onResultData, allow retry).	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references external skills ('react-component' skill, 'module-federation' skill) and the Stepper directory, but no bundle files are provided to verify these references. The content itself is monolithic — all ~200+ lines are in a single file with no separation of the detailed step definitions, service specification, or SDD template into referenced files. The import reference table and SDD sections could be split out.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

13 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation