Content
87%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 tight, highly actionable instruction-only workflow with clean organization and real file references. The only gap is the absence of an explicit feedback loop for when the pre-flight check fails.
Suggestions
Add an explicit recovery step for the dev.py check, e.g. 'If check fails, fix the reported issues and re-run until it passes before drafting the PR.'
State the expected outcome of the git log branch-split check (e.g. 'If one logical change, proceed; otherwise STOP and ask the user') to make the checkpoint's pass/fail branches explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: concrete commands and repo-specific rules with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the level-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands (git log, uv run --no-sync dev.py check, gh pr create --draft) and points to concrete artifacts (.github/pull_request_template.md, CHANGELOG.md, CLAUDE.md); per the instruction-only note, the actionable guidance merits a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are sequenced across "Before creating" and "Creating" with a validation step (dev.py check), but there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop describing what to do if the check fails, which is the level-2 validation-gap anchor rather than level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files, it is cleanly organized into two well-signaled sections and references real one-level repo files, satisfying the simple-skill note that well-organized content can score 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |