Content
86%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 highly actionable and well-structured, with executable commands throughout and clear validation checkpoints. The main improvements are trimming the redundancy between the Safety/Execution Contract/Never-do sections and adding an explicit error-recovery loop.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after the verification steps (e.g., 'If mypy, the build, or integration tests fail, fix the proto or regeneration and re-run from step 2').
Consolidate the overlapping guidance between 'Safety', 'Execution Contract', and 'Never do' to remove repeated statements about not editing generated dirs and not regenerating a single language.
Clarify what a 'version bump plan' for breaking changes should look like, or link to where that process is documented, since step 1 references it without detail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of protobuf/gRPC basics), but the Execution Contract, Safety, and 'Never do' sections overlap somewhat and could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands for every step (git diff, generate_protos.sh, mypy, npm build, pytest) plus a concrete commit-message template covering the common case. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear seven-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (mypy, build, integration tests) and an Execution Contract checklist, but it lacks an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop if validation fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers, self-contained at a single level, and the only references are one-level links to real repo files (proto, docs); no nested or buried references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |