Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise and well-structured with a clean pointer to a real reference file, but it stops short of executable examples or validation steps that would make the style rules fully actionable and verifiable.
Suggestions
Add a short before/after example illustrating the inline-link rule and the opening-paragraph constraint so guidance is concrete and copy-paste ready.
Include a verification step or checklist (e.g. 'Confirm ≥3 inline canonical links and no terminal References section before publishing') to close the feedback loop.
Optionally surface one or two high-value fields from writing-style.json (e.g. structure_pattern) inline so users get the shape without opening the asset.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — each rule states a constraint and its rationale with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete prohibitions and a measurable rule (≥3 descriptive inline links) but provides no executable examples or templates illustrating the expected output, leaving guidance partially abstract. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Rules are listed as numbered steps but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops to verify an article conforms, which the rubric flags for batch/risky operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that points to a real one-level-deep reference (assets/writing-style.json) with a clearly signaled link, and the referenced file exists. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |