doc-requirements-matrix

I took a look at your requirements documentation skill—the structured approach to capturing product needs is solid, but the modularity could use some work. With a 54/100, there's a real opportunity here to tighten how the different components fit together and make the whole thing more intuitive for teams actually trying to use it.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 54/100, firmly in F territory. This is based on Anthropic's progressive disclosure and spec compliance best practices. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (11/15)—the frontmatter is solid and naming conventions are clean. The real weak spots are Utility (8/20) and Progressive Disclosure Architecture (13/30)—you're describing what the skill does, but not giving users the actual tools to do it.

What's Working Well

• Clean frontmatter structure – Valid YAML with required fields; the naming convention (doc-requirements-matrix) follows hyphen-case correctly
• Clear conceptual framework – The five-step process (Request Intake → Scoring → Priority Board → Assignment → Tracking) is logical and addresses a real pain point
• Consistent terminology – Terms like 'request', 'scoring', and 'status' stay consistent throughout, which helps users understand the flow

The Big One: Missing Reference Files and Scoring Details

Here's what's killing your utility score: you're talking about templates and scoring formulas, but they don't actually exist anywhere. The "Templates" section says:

Requirement intake form (Notion/Sheet) with scoring formula.
Priority board with filters...

But there's no references/ directory with the actual intake form template, no scoring formula breakdown, no worked examples. This violates the Progressive Disclosure Architecture principle—you need to layer your content so the main skill is concise, but detailed references are available if users dig deeper.

Fix: Create these files:

• references/intake-form-template.md – Sample fields (requester_name, audience, format, deadline, compliance_flag)
• references/scoring-formula.md – Actual weights and calculation (e.g., "impact×3 + urgency×2 + compliance×5 = priority_score")
• references/worked-example.md – A real doc request walked through the full matrix

This single change gets you +6 points on PDA and +3 points on Utility immediately.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Add trigger phrases to the description – Right now it says "Framework for capturing documentation requirements..." Users searching for "prioritize documentation" or "intake doc requests" won't find you. Rewrite the description field to include: "Use when asked to 'doc requirements matrix', 'prioritize documentation work', 'score doc requests', or 'track documentation requirements'." (+2 Spec Compliance)

2. Make the workflow actually actionable – "Request Intake" is too conceptual. Break step 1 into: "Create intake form from requester with fields: [requester_name], [audience], [format], [deadline]. Populate scoring sheet using formula from references/scoring-formula.md." (+3 Ease of Use)

3. Add a validation step – Right now the framework ends at assignment/tracking. Add: "Step 6: Monthly Review – compare estimated priority against actual impact; adjust scoring weights if accuracy is off by >20%." This addresses the missing feedback loop. (+4 Utility)

Quick Wins

• Biggest bang: Create the references/ directory with templates and scoring formula (+9 points)
• Easy fix: Add trigger phrases to description metadata (+2 points)
• Polish: Tighten workflow steps to be less conceptual, more executable (+3 points)

Do this, and you're looking at low-to-mid 70s. The concept is solid—it just needs teeth.

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.