Content
75%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 a highly actionable routing-and-contract document with executable commands, explicit thresholds, and a clean progressive-disclosure structure backed by a complete reference bundle. Its main weakness is redundancy — authority and prompting rules are restated across sections — plus a missing explicit error-recovery loop after failed post-fix validation.
Suggestions
Consolidate the authority model into a single authoritative statement and have other sections reference it by name only, as is already done for § Scope derivation, to cut the restated fix/submit rules in the Route and Validation sections.
Trim the Interaction and interruption contract and Product Demand gate prose by removing repeated restatements (e.g., the multiple 'stop the whole review' and 'never ask' clauses that restate the same rule in different words).
Add an explicit validation-failure recovery step to § Validation after applied fixes (fix → validate → re-validate loop) to close the workflow-clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids basic-concept padding and is dense with project-specific rules, but it restates the same contracts repeatedly — the authority model appears in the description, Authority model, Route, and Validation sections, and the no-prompting/stop rules are rephrased multiple times ("This table is the single source of truth...", "It is the **sole owner**...", repeated "stop the whole review immediately" clauses). It could be tightened noticeably without losing information, fitting the mostly-efficient-but-could-be-tightened anchor rather than the verbose anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance throughout: exact git commands (`git diff HEAD`, `git merge-base origin/{main|master} HEAD`, `git diff --numstat`, `git rev-parse --verify`, `git diff A~1..B`), exact pnpm commands with real gotchas ("Never `pnpm test <path>` — that script chains several vitest invocations and the path reaches only the last one"), explicit numeric thresholds (CHANGED_LINES <= 1000, CHANGED_FILES <= 20), flag definitions, and a copy-paste usage-examples block covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear and well-gated: an ordered stage table with explicit stage scoping, first-match routing rules, commit/range endpoint validation, an empty-scope exit with usage examples, and a validation section for applied fixes. The minor gap keeping it below 5 is the absence of an explicit error-recovery loop (what to do when post-fix validation fails) in the body itself, and some checkpoint detail being delegated to leaf files. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All ten referenced files (`local-review.md`, `teams-review.md`, `pr-review.md`, `cherry-review-guidance.md`, `consumer-review.md`, `code-checklist.md`, `doc-checklist.md`, `judgment-matrix.md`, `diagnosis.md`, `checklist-evolution.md`) exist and are clearly signaled with purpose via the stage table and routing rules, with heavy detail appropriately split out one level deep. The minor gap is that the Interaction contract and Product Demand gate sections are long inline content that makes the overview denser than typical, arguably belonging in their own reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |