call-review-kit

I found your call-review-kit while evaluating some emerging skill patterns, and I'm curious about the design choice to focus on review workflows—that's a pretty specific problem space. With a score sitting at 52, there's solid foundation here, but it looks like there are some gaps worth exploring around progressive disclosure and spec alignment that could really unlock its potential.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 52/100, which puts you in F territory. This is based on Anthropic's progressive disclosure architecture and skill spec best practices. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (11/15)—the frontmatter and naming conventions are solid. But Progressive Disclosure Architecture (12/30) and Utility (9/20) are dragging you down hard. The core issue: you're promising templates and workflows that don't actually exist in the skill, which tanks both discoverability and practical usefulness.

What's Working Well

• Clean YAML frontmatter – Valid structure with required fields present
• Logical framework organization – The 5-part framework (Call Selection, Agenda, Scorecard, Facilitation, Follow-up) is conceptually sound
• Good grep-friendly structure – Clear headers and sections make the content scannable, even at <100 lines
• Stays objective – No marketing fluff; purely instructional tone

The Big One: Missing Reference Files

Here's what's killing your score: You mention "Templates" and reference specific deliverables (Call review agenda, Scorecard worksheet, Follow-up email template) but none of these files actually exist. This tanks your Progressive Disclosure Architecture (supposed to be 30 points, you got 12) and your Utility score.

The fix: Create a references/ directo...