Content
77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced shipping workflow with strong validation gates, though its length and inline detail push conciseness and content-splitting below the top level. The two reference files are real and properly one level deep.
Suggestions
Move the lint/format gate and sketch-cleanup procedures into reference files (as done for feature-tracker-update.md) to trim the body and improve progressive disclosure.
De-duplicate the CHANGE_RECORD enrichment description across the GitHub and Bitbucket PR sections by extracting it once and referencing it.
Tighten the sketch-cleanup section's per-status option lists, which restate Delete/Keep repeatedly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Procedural and dense, but the ~260-line body repeats itself (CHANGE_RECORD enrichment explained twice, GitHub/Bitbucket paths re-stated) and the sketch-cleanup section is verbose, so it is mostly efficient but could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands throughout ("git branch --show-current", "gh pr create --title \"...\" --body \"...\"", "bkt pr create ...") plus specific numeric thresholds ("N <= 20 → suggest Fix now"), making guidance copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly numbered 6-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (lint/format gate, auth-status checks) and a dedicated error-handling section giving feedback loops for risky operations like push rejection. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Two real one-level-deep references are clearly signaled ("> Read .../feature-tracker-update.md" and the platform-labels.md path), but the bulk of detailed logic (lint gate, sketch cleanup) is inline rather than split out, leaving structure good but not cleanly separated. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |