Content
67%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 content is well-structured and actionable with clear sequenced workflows and mostly real, one-level-deep references. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity from duplicated sections and a broken templates/ reference that leaves a navigation gap.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the citation-hallucination material: keep the full 'Citation Workflow' section and reduce the early '⚠️ CRITICAL: Never Hallucinate Citations' block to a short pointer, since the same rules appear twice.
Create the referenced templates/ directory (with templates/README.md and the per-venue subdirectories) or change the repeated templates/ links to point to existing reference files, so navigation resolves.
Trim the inlined writing-philosophy tables (Gopen & Swan, Perez, Lipton, Steinhardt) to brief summaries and defer the detail to references/writing-guide.md, which already covers them, to reduce token cost.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient but includes several padded/repeated sections — the 'Never Hallucinate Citations' material appears both early (CRITICAL section) and again in the later 'Citation Workflow' section, and writing-philosophy prose is duplicated between the body and references/writing-guide.md. It is not the severely verbose 'explains what a PDF is' level, sitting at the 'mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable guidance — bash exploration commands, latexmk/pdflatex compile commands, LaTeX/booktabs snippets, and step-by-step checklists — with only minor gaps, matching the 'mostly executable guidance' anchor rather than fully copy-paste-ready across all cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step workflows (paper writing, citation verification, template setup, format conversion) are clearly sequenced with checklists, and the citation workflow has an explicit feedback loop ('If any step fails → mark as placeholder and report it'). Minor validation gaps keep it just below the explicit-checkpoint anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with well-signaled one-level-deep references that mostly resolve to real files, but the body repeatedly references a templates/ directory and templates/README.md that do not exist, and substantial philosophy content is inlined that also appears in references/writing-guide.md — minor organization gaps per the score-4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |