Content
93%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 lean, actionable, and well-structured with conditional reference routing and decision tables. The only gap is that the destructive test-pruning workflow relies on a reference for validation/feedback loops rather than surfacing them inline.
Suggestions
Add a brief inline validate-step for the pruning/deletion path (e.g., 'name a regression that would become possible before deleting') so the feedback loop is visible without loading the reference.
Surface the deletion grill's commit-discipline and final-report expectations as a one-line summary in the body to make the destructive workflow self-contained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Result Assertions, Tests vs Benchmarks, naming, splitting) earns its place with tight rules and examples. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable guidance throughout — copy-paste-ready import snippets, good/bad test-name contrasts, a splitting decision table, and an annotated naming pattern diagram covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear conditional routing ('If working with X, read Y') and explicit When to Split / When NOT to Split decision guidance, but the body itself lacks explicit validate-fix-retry checkpoints for the destructive batch 'deleting/pruning tests' path (delegated to a reference rather than stated inline). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references conditionally routed by task; all five referenced files exist and each reference is gated on a specific working context. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |