Content
77%Reviews 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 and clearly sequenced with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops, but carries redundancy in the review-mode explanation and keeps large templates inline rather than progressively disclosing them.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicate review-mode explanation in Phase 6 — consolidate to a single canonical description referenced from Phase 0.
Consider moving the full sprint-plan, status-report, and sprint-status.yaml templates into a references file (e.g. references/templates.md) and linking from the body, since no bundle files currently exist.
Tighten the gate-spawning prose in Phase 4 by referencing the shared pattern in .claude/docs/director-gates.md instead of restating verdict handling inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete templates and no padding with concepts Claude already knows, but the review-mode explanation is duplicated (Phase 0 and Phase 6) and some gate-spawning prose could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides complete, copy-paste-ready markdown and yaml templates with all fields, exact file paths, specific tool calls (Glob, Task, AskUserQuestion), and full AskUserQuestion prompts with option text. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced phases with explicit validation checkpoints (feasibility gate verdict handling, "Do NOT write yet" gating), feedback loops (revise and re-present before write), and a Definition of Done checklist. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into headed phases with a one-level signaled reference (.claude/docs/director-gates.md), but no bundle files exist and large templates plus gate-pattern detail are kept fully inline rather than split out. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |