site-performance-watch

I've been looking at how skills approach performance monitoring, and your site-performance-watch implementation caught my attention—the architecture is solid, but the score breakdown suggests there's room to tighten up the spec compliance and some of the foundational design choices that would push this from a D to something stronger.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 67/100, solidly in D territory. This is based on Anthropic's Progressive Disclosure Architecture patterns. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (11/15), but you're bleeding points in PDA (18/30) and Ease of Use (17/25). The real opportunity here is converting those vague templates and concepts into actual reference files—that's a quick +7 point win.

What's Working Well

• Solid YAML frontmatter – The metadata structure is clean and valid (5/5 points)
• Hyphen-case naming follows conventions perfectly (4/4 points)
• Grep-friendly structure – The skill file is well-organized enough for quick parsing
• Real e-commerce focus – KPI Stack, Segmentation, and Alerting Rules address an actual pain point in the space

The Big One: Missing Reference Files

This is your biggest leverage point. You mention three templates—performance scorecard, incident log, escalation matrix—but none of them exist as actual reference files. Right now, they're just promises.

Here's the fix: Create a references/ subdirectory with:

• references/performance-scorecard.md – Actual template with spark lines and threshold examples
• references/incident-log.md – Pre-filled incident response structure
• references/escalation-matrix.md – Decision tree for who to notify when

This alone bumps you +7 points (PDA gains 4, Utility ga...