Content
66%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 extremely concise and uses progressive disclosure well by pointing to a real, well-structured reference file. Its weakness is that the body alone carries minimal actionable or workflow guidance, offloading nearly all execution detail to the reference.
Suggestions
Add a brief inline checklist of the core fix workflow (reproduce → root-cause → patch → regression test → verify) so the body is actionable without forcing a file read for the basic sequence.
Include one or two concrete verification commands inline (e.g., the focused test command) so Claude can act immediately on simple cases.
Surface an explicit validation checkpoint in the body (e.g., 'do not proceed until the focused test passes') to strengthen workflow clarity for code edits.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Two lean sentences with no padding or over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides one concrete pointer ('Read `references/regression-testing.md` before editing code') but the body itself contains no executable fix steps or commands — the actionable detail is delegated to the reference, leaving the body incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The body offers only a rough implicit sequence (read reference, then edit) with major gaps; the actual reproduce→patch→verify workflow and validation checkpoints live entirely in the referenced file rather than the body. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview body points to one well-signaled, one-level-deep reference (verified to exist at references/regression-testing.md); content is appropriately split between overview and details with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |