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.

The fix: Either (1) create those reference files with actual content (flowcharts, templates, step-by-step procedures), or (2) restructure SKILL.md to be self-contained without dangling references. If you go route 2, move the detailed content inline with collapse sections. This alone could net you +8 points.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Strip the marketing language — 'comprehensive' appears 11 times, plus 'robust,' 'seamless,' 'expert-level' scattered throughout. These undermine clarity. Rewrite "Expert-level quality documentation management with comprehensive document control" → "Document control system design with regulatory oversight and change management." That's +5 points.

2. Add a Table of Contents — 266 lines with no TOC means readers are scrolling blindly. Add one after the description with links to each section. Quick win, +3 points.

3. Convert ASCII diagrams into workflows — Your diagrams show structure but no numbered execution steps. Add checklists: "1. Classify documents by type, 2. Assign document numbers using [format], 3. Configure approval workflows..." This bridges the gap between "here's the architecture" and "here's how I actually do this." +4 points.

4. Add validation procedures — You mention "Decision Points" but never show how to verify a decision was correct. Add: "Validation: Run regulatory-doc-validator.py → Review compliance report → Fix flagged issues → Re-validate." +3 points.

Quick Wins

Most impactful first:

• Create the referenced guide files or consolidate into SKILL.md (+8 points)
• Kill the marketing adjectives, write like technical docs (+5 points)
• Add numbered execution steps to workflows (+4 points)
• Include validation/verification patterns (+3 points)

Target these four and you're looking at 64 → 84, which moves you from D to B territory.

Checkout your skill here: SkillzWave.ai | SpillWave We have an agentic skill installer that install skills in 14+ coding agent platforms. Check out this guide on how to improve your agentic skills.