Content
85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, highly actionable workflow with strong validation feedback loops and clean progressive disclosure of reviewer rubrics. The main weakness is conciseness — several guardrail explanations and parentheticals could be tightened.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated behavior-preservation guidance (Step 3 and Step 4 both restate it at length) into one canonical statement and reference it, to cut redundant prose.
Trim the long parentheticals in the Model selection and Permission mode paragraphs to the essential rule; the surrounding justification can be implied.
Tighten the Preflight paragraph by leading with the no-code gate condition and moving the size-policy carve-out into a single short sentence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The procedural core is mostly efficient and earns its tokens, but several passages pad — repeated behavior-preservation restatements, long parentheticals on tool-selection and permission mode, and the dense preflight paragraph could be tightened without losing the gating rules. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete commands ("git diff origin/main...", "git diff HEAD"), named platform tools (AskUserQuestion, request_user_input, ask_question, ask_user), and explicit reviewer-prompt file paths — copy-paste ready guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 5-step process with explicit validation checkpoints in Step 4 (typecheck, lint, scoped tests) and a feedback loop (fix or revert regressions; do not weaken assertions), plus per-fix behavior checks in Step 3. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an overview that delegates the three reviewer rubrics to real, one-level-deep files under references/personas/ (verified to exist), with clear signaling and no nested indirection. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |