Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is exceptionally concise and well-structured with a sensible review workflow and merge gate. Its main weakness is actionability: steps are abstract and lack concrete commands or examples.
Suggestions
Add concrete executable detail to steps, e.g. 'Run relevant tests locally: `go test ./...` (or the repo's CI command)' and how to validate API/contracts.
Tie the Merge Gate explicitly back into the protocol as a checkpoint (e.g. 'Only proceed to merge when all gate conditions are verified') to make the validation loop explicit.
Consider a short example of an actionable request-changes item so the feedback loop is concrete rather than implied.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps are imperative ('Read full diff', 'Run relevant tests locally', 'Validate API/contracts') but give no concrete commands, examples, or how-to details, so guidance is actionable yet incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 1-5 sequence exists and a Merge Gate checklist provides a final validation, but the gate is a terminal check rather than integrated per-step checkpoints, leaving validation somewhat implicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clear sections (When to Use, Review Protocol, Merge Gate) and no bundle files, which per the simple-skills note merits a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |