Content
76%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 actionable and well-structured with a concrete output template and quantified design specs. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the discovery sequence lacks validation checkpoints, and some content that could be split into reference files is inlined.
Suggestions
Add an explicit confirmation checkpoint in the Initial Assessment workflow (e.g., confirm the gathered app ID, audience, and top 3 features with the user before generating the 10-slot plan).
Pull the competitor screenshot audit table and/or app preview video guidance into separate reference files (e.g. COMPETITOR_AUDIT.md, PREVIEW_VIDEO.md) and link to them from the body to improve progressive disclosure.
Trim the redundant "Avoid" rows in the Do/Don't tables where they merely restate the inverse of the corresponding "Do" guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely lean and assumes Claude's intelligence (no explanations of what screenshots or device frames are), with minor redundancy where the "Avoid" lists restate the "Do" tables. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste ready output template (Slot [N] with caption/screen/layout/key element), a concrete headline formula, and quantified specs (60px, 4-6 words, 15-30s) covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Initial Assessment section gives a numbered sequence, but there are no validation checkpoints, confirmation step, or feedback loop before producing the 10-slot plan. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file structure with clear section headers, but ~160 lines including the competitor audit table and video guide that could arguably live in separate reference files are inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |