Content
76%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 highly actionable with comprehensive executable examples and clean structure. Its weaknesses are minor duplication and the absence of validation checkpoints for destructive/batch operations.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the "No markdown tables" and "Mention users as <@USER_ID>" guidance that appears in both Guidelines and Writing Style.
Add a brief validation/verification step for destructive actions (e.g., confirm messageId before delete, verify search results before acting on a batch).
Consolidate the components-v2-vs-embeds guidance into one place to remove the restated explanation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's competence with no concept over-explanation, but "No markdown tables" and "Mention users as <@USER_ID>" are each duplicated across Guidelines and Writing Style, and components-vs-embeds guidance is restated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready JSON examples cover send, media, components v2, embeds, react, read, edit, delete, poll, pin, thread-create, search, and presence, fully spanning the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Individual actions are unambiguous and guardrails (gating, explicit ids) exist, but destructive (delete) and batch (search across channelIds) operations lack validation/verification checkpoints, capping this dimension at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-sectioned file with clear headers and no nested references, but it exceeds 50 lines and offers no external reference signaling, so it does not reach the one-level-deep reference structure of the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |