Content
72%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and mostly actionable with a clear sequence, but it lacks an explicit validation feedback loop and references platform-spec files that are absent from the bundle.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint after step 5 (e.g., re-check policy/character limits and only proceed to step 6 when validation passes).
Provide the missing ads/references/*.md spec files (google, meta, youtube, linkedin, tiktok, microsoft) or remove the references if the specs are not bundled.
Specify the versioned creative-brief/copy-deck output structure so the final deliverable is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | A lean numbered workflow with no padding or over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the closing guardrail line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance (separate claim types; define insight/promise/proof/hook/narrative/CTA/objections; return versioned brief) is actionable, but lacks an explicit output schema or executable artifact for the common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence is present, but validation in step 5 is framed as loading references rather than an explicit validate-fix-retry checkpoint; for batch ad production this feedback-loop gap caps the score. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to platform spec files (ads/references/*.md) are one level deep and clearly signaled, but the referenced files do not exist in the references/ bundle, breaking the disclosure promise. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |