Content
53%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 concise and well-structured, but it lacks executable API examples and validation checkpoints for its batch API operations, limiting actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add concrete, copy-pasteable API call examples (e.g., a `requests.get` snippet against api.clinpgx.org showing endpoint, params, and response handling).
Insert validation checkpoints into the workflow (e.g., verify HTTP status, retry on 429, confirm CSV fields before writing) so batch operations have explicit feedback loops.
Specify the actual API endpoints/paths used for gene lookup, drug lookup, and clinical annotations so the guidance is directly executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence without over-explaining concepts, with only minor spots that could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The workflow is described in prose ('Hit the ClinPGx REST API with rate limiting', 'Generate report') with no executable code, API call examples, or concrete commands, leaving the specific steps to execute largely missing. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered sequence is present, but batch API operations (rate-limited queries, CSV generation) lack explicit validation checkpoints, capping workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clear sections in a single appropriately-sized file with no bundle files needed; minor organization gaps only. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |