quality-documentation-manager

Looking at how you've structured the documentation workflow, I'm curious whether the Progressive Disclosure approach actually holds up when you're managing complex formatting requirements across different platforms—seems like there's a tension between keeping the skill modular and handling all those edge cases.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 64/100, solidly in D territory. This is graded against Anthropic's progressive disclosure architecture standards—basically, how efficiently your skill uses tokens while staying discoverable and useful. Your Spec Compliance is solid (12/15), but Utility (10/20) and Progressive Disclosure (18/30) are dragging things down. The good news? This is fixable with targeted rewrites.

What's Working Well

• Spec Compliance is tight — Your YAML frontmatter is valid, naming follows conventions, and you've got specific trigger phrases (document control, regulatory documentation, change management) that actually activate the skill appropriately.
• You identified real problems — Documentation gaps, regulatory oversight, change management—these are legitimate pain points that teams actually deal with.
• Structure signals are present — ASCII diagrams for the DMS architecture and workflow layouts show you understand the domain; they just need execution details attached.

The Big One: Missing Reference Files

Here's what's killing your PDA score: SKILL.md references 5 detailed guides that don't exist (dms-storage-design.md, workflow-automation.md, system-integration-guide.md, etc.), but only a placeholder api_reference.md is in the repo. This breaks the progressive disclosure pattern—users can't actually follow through to deeper content...