senior-prompt-engineer

I looked at your senior-prompt-engineer skill and noticed the grading rubric heavily penalizes the documentation structure—the core ideas are solid, but they're buried under formatting choices that make them harder to follow for developers actually trying to use the skill.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 36/100, which is an F grade. This is based on Anthropic's best practices for skill design. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (12/15)—the YAML structure and naming conventions are solid. The real drag is Utility (4/20) and Writing Style (2/10)—you've got aspirational concepts but they lack concrete, actionable workflows that developers can actually execute.

What's Working Well

• Valid metadata structure - Your YAML frontmatter is clean and follows conventions perfectly
• Decent trigger coverage - You've identified relevant use cases like "optimizing LLM performance" and "designing agentic systems"
• Reference architecture - Having three reference files shows you're thinking layered, even if the content needs work
• Grep-friendly structure - The skill is organized in a way that's easy to search and navigate

The Big One: Duplicate Reference Content

Here's what's killing your score: all three reference files (prompt_engineering_patterns.md, agentic_system_design.md, llm_evaluation_frameworks.md) are 80%+ identical boilerplate. They share the same "Core Principles," "Advanced Patterns," and "Best Practices" sections—which defeats the whole purpose of having multiple references.

Why it matters: Progressive Disclosure Architecture is supposed to layer specific, relevant details. Right now you're wasting tokens repeating the same content three time...