Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a highly actionable, well-sequenced auditor prompt with concrete search patterns, thresholds, and verification checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are some redundancy across the severity tables and the absence of any progressive-disclosure file split despite the length.
Suggestions
Dedupe severity definitions: define them once (e.g. in Phase 2) and reference them from the Phase 4 and Phase 5 tables instead of restating them.
Move the Phase 3 completeness-question table and Phase 4 compound-findings table into a reference file (e.g. references/compound-findings.md) linked from the main body to introduce one-level-deep progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is signal-dense and assumes Claude's competence, but at ~210 lines it repeats severity definitions across per-category sections, the Phase 4 table, and Phase 5 scoring, and the exclude lists overlap, so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Exact grep patterns, concrete thresholds (>20 properties, >100-line bodies, >80% logic), and named fix targets ('Extract to @Observable model', 'Use @Bindable var item') give copy-paste-ready, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 1-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit verification gates ('use Read to verify the surrounding context', 'Present this map before proceeding') and a 'False Positives' checklist guarding against over-reporting. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body references none, so it is a well-sectioned but monolithic single file; for a body this long, pulling the anti-pattern catalog or compound tables into a reference file would add one-level-deep structure. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |