Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a concise, well-structured overview that delegates detail to real reference files. It falls short on actionability and workflow clarity, since it names helper scripts and lifecycle actions without concrete commands or sequenced validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add concrete invocations for the deterministic helpers (e.g. 'python scripts/project_kb.py scaffold <slug>') instead of only naming the categories.
Provide a sequenced workflow for risky lifecycle actions (purge, archive, link repair) with explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoints.
Show the canonical routing decision (Sources vs Knowledge vs Experiments) as a short inline decision rule rather than only listing the targets.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it states rules, responsibilities, and routing targets without padding or restating concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It points to 'scripts under scripts/' and lists helper categories (scaffold, registry consistency, link checks) but gives no concrete invocations, script entry points, or example commands, leaving guidance incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Responsibilities and lifecycle actions are enumerated but not sequenced into a workflow, and risky operations (purge, archive, link repair) lack explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview with a well-signaled one-level-deep 'Read next' section; all seven referenced files exist under references/ and content is appropriately split across them. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |