Content
78%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, token-efficient body with a clear sequenced workflow and excellent progressive disclosure via real one-level-deep reference files. The main weakness is mild over-explanation of well-known architectural principles and the lack of an explicit feedback loop in the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and uses terse bullets, but glosses like 'SoC: Divide into distinct sections per concern' and 'High Cohesion: Related functionality in one module' re-explain principles Claude already knows and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance is present ('Select communication pattern (sync REST, async event, or hybrid)', 'timeout and circuit-break the dependency, return a defined degraded/fallback result') with only minor gaps in specificity. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence includes a scoped validation checkpoint ('Validate CAP trade-offs only for distributed components') and an explicit output step (record an ADR), though an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop is absent. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to real bundle files (references/implementation.md, references/distributed-systems.md, references/resilience-patterns.md), none of which nest further. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |