fda-consultant-specialist

I took a look at your FDA consultant skill and noticed the grading framework focuses heavily on regulatory compliance patterns—but I'm curious whether the skill documentation assumes users already know which FDA workflows they're targeting, or if it guides them through that discovery first.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 58/100, which lands in F territory. This is based on Anthropic's best practices for skill architecture. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (12/15)—the frontmatter and naming conventions are solid. The real drag is Writing Style (4/10) and Progressive Disclosure Architecture (13/30)—lots of marketing fluff and missing reference files are eating your score.

What's Working Well

• Valid YAML structure — Your frontmatter is clean and follows conventions properly
• Good trigger identification — You nailed the discovery terms: "FDA submission", "QSR compliance", "HIPAA" are all solid FDA-specific triggers
• Structured sections — The skill has clear headers and navigation signals that help users find what they need
• Addresses real problems — FDA compliance is genuinely useful, and your workflows target actual regulatory pain points

The Big One: Missing Reference Architecture

Here's the problem: Your SKILL.md references 9+ files that don't exist (fda-capa-requirements.md, device-cybersecurity-guidance.md, software-hipaa-compliance.md, etc.), but only a placeholder file actually exists in the references directory. This is a -7 point hit because it breaks Progressive Disclosure Architecture—users click expecting detailed guidance and find nothing.

Fix: Either (1) create all referenced files with actual content—QSR requirements,...