Content
67%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 well-structured and actionable with concrete Coq code and a clear multi-step workflow, supported by a real one-level reference file. Its main weaknesses are redundant restated sections that inflate length, placeholder (`Admitted`) and broken examples that reduce executable reliability, and a verification step without an explicit fix-and-retry loop.
Suggestions
Consolidate 'Key Differences: Imperative vs Coq Model', 'Best Practices', and 'Limitations' into the existing Overview/workflow sections to remove redundant content and tighten conciseness.
Replace `Admitted` proof placeholders and fix the `sum`/`sum_aux` example so all inline Coq code is type-checkable and semantically correct, raising actionability.
Turn the 'Verify and Test' step into an explicit feedback loop (coqc fails → read error → fix → re-run `coqc` → only proceed when valid) to strengthen workflow_clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but several sections are redundant — 'Key Differences: Imperative vs Coq Model', 'Best Practices', and 'Limitations' largely restate the Overview, workflow steps, and Quick Reference table, padding the body unnecessarily. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready Coq code, real `coqc` and `Compute` commands, and a Quick Reference table; gaps exist because several specifications use `Admitted`/placeholder proofs and the `sum`/`sum_aux` example has a termination/semantics mismatch. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps (Analyze, Design, Extract, Specify, Verify, Refine) with a type-check and Compute validation step; the verify step lacks an explicit fix-and-re-validate feedback loop, leaving minor checkpoint gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with an overview, a well-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/extraction_patterns.md, which exists), a Quick Reference table, and inline examples; minor gaps because substantial pattern/example content is inlined rather than split into additional reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |