Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-structured, actionable walkthrough procedure with concrete commands, clear sequencing, and validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are minor repetition that slightly hurts conciseness and the absence of file-based progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the inline-Read-PNG instruction (state it once in Step 2 and reference back from Step 7) and trim "Important" points that restate step content, to improve conciseness.
Consider extracting the diagram-complexity rubric or the quality checklist into a bundled reference file to demonstrate clearer progressive disclosure.
Optionally add an explicit "if a leg cannot be traced, flag it and ask the user" feedback loop to harden the trace step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept explanations, but the inline-Read-PNG instruction is repeated across Step 2 and Step 7, and the "Important" section reiterates guidance already covered in the steps; it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (recall(...), retain(...), /devflow:render-diagram, devflow visualizations render) plus specific instructional guidance (file paths, line numbers, 5–20 line blocks, IN/OUT), appropriate for an instruction skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight clearly sequenced steps with an explicit pre-present Walkthrough Quality Checklist, an assumption-verification feedback loop, and an "ask the user if anything is unclear before proceeding" checkpoint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into sections with a clearly signaled one-level reference to the render-diagram skill, but as a single ~90-line file with no bundle files and all procedural detail inline it does not fully demonstrate file-based progressive disclosure. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |