Content
88%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.
A well-structured, highly actionable multi-step research workflow with strong validation gates; its only weakness is mild verbosity and inlined material that could live in separate reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and mostly lean — tabular criteria, thresholds, and tool commands rather than explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but the intro reframes the methodology at some length and the AI-infrastructure layer dump is long, so a few sections could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly executable: concrete scarcity thresholds (≤3 suppliers, >2y lead time, >90% utilization), explicit tool invocations ('financial_rigor command=verify_valuation', 'command=three_scenario', 'report_audit command=extract → verdict'), valuation gate cutoffs (PS>30x, PE>80x), search-query templates, and a copy-ready output one-pager template. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints — the mandatory valuation gate in Step 4, the positive+reverse cross-validation in Step 5, and the 'report_audit extract → verify each point → verdict' quality gate in Step 6 — provide feedback loops for a research/batch workflow. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections (Steps 1–7, bias self-check, core principles) and self-contained with no nested references, but at ~180 lines some material (the full layer-decomposition example, the output template) could be split into reference files rather than inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |