Content
82%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.
A lean, well-structured orchestration body whose boundaries section is notably strong. Its main weakness is referential precision: several steps point to unnamed shared references and contracts, which forces the reader to resolve them at runtime.
Suggestions
Replace the categorical mention "relevant shared measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring references" with the actual file paths, ideally as a linked list under a References section.
Name the specific JSON contract files ("the common JSON contracts") or link to them so the output step is unambiguous.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after step 6 (e.g., verify findings against the schema and fix before returning) to close the workflow's feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 33-line body contains no concept explanations Claude already knows; every line carries non-obvious instructions ("Do not convert vendor recommendations into universal thresholds", "Keep all account changes as drafts until the main mutation gate passes"), matching the lean-every-token-earns-its-place anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete file paths ("ads/references/snapchat-audit.md") and a specific input-collection checklist make most steps executable, but "relevant shared measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring references" and "the common JSON contracts" name no paths or files, leaving execution gaps; above the pseudocode/incomplete level of 3. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step ordered sequence with most checkpoints present ("Return schema-valid findings", "Render a platform report only from the validated run bundle"), but schema validation is an expectation rather than an explicit validate-and-retry step, so it falls short of the explicit-feedback-loop anchor of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections (Procedure, Boundaries, Output) are well-organized and the external reference is clearly named, but it is inline prose rather than a linked navigation section, and the shared references are identified by category rather than by path; good structure with minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |