Content
85%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 body: a five-phase workflow with validation checkpoints on every step, correctly-scoped code examples, a hard constraints section, and clean progressive disclosure into five real reference files. The remaining gains are trimming concept-list padding and de-duplicating the feature-flag example, plus making the early workflow steps as concrete as the later ones.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Knowledge Reference' buzzword list (strangler fig pattern, feature flags, canary deployments, etc.) — Claude already knows these concepts and the list adds no actionable guidance; the lowest-hanging conciseness fix.
Drop or merge the 'Feature Flag Wrapper' example: it duplicates the env-var check already demonstrated inside the facade example; referencing a shared flag_enabled helper from the facade would halve that code while keeping coverage.
Tighten actionability of the early workflow steps by naming the concrete artifacts to use, e.g. pointing step 1's dependency map and step 2's roadmap directly at the LegacyCodeAnalyzer checklist and templates in references/system-assessment.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow, constraints, and output templates are tight, but there are trimmable pieces: the "Knowledge Reference" section is a list of concepts Claude already knows ("Strangler fig pattern, branch by abstraction, characterization testing, ... zero-downtime deployment"), and the Feature Flag Wrapper example repeats the env-var flag logic already shown in the facade example. This fits anchor 4 ("Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed") — not score 5, where every token would earn its place, and not score 3, since the padding is peripheral rather than woven through the guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The code examples (facade, feature flag, characterization test) are complete, executable Python with concrete thresholds ("Target 80%+ coverage", "5% → 25% → 50% → 100%"), but they reference hypothetical services (legacy_service/new_service) and workflow steps like "Produce a dependency map and risk register" stay directional, deferring specifics to reference files. Anchor 4 ("Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps") is the best fit; score 5 would require the examples to stand alone covering the common cases without deferring key detail. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step Core Workflow is clearly sequenced and every step carries an explicit validation checkpoint ("Confirm all external integrations and data contracts are documented", "Run the characterization test suite and confirm it passes green on the unmodified legacy system", "Verify error rates and latency metrics remain within baseline thresholds after each traffic increment"), with rollback triggers defined per phase. This matches anchor 5 ("Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery"); score 4 would leave some checkpoints implicit, which is not the case here. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The Reference Guide table signals each of the five one-level-deep reference files (all verified to exist and be substantive) with a "Load When" condition — e.g. "`references/strangler-fig-pattern.md` | Incremental replacement, facade layer, routing" — and the detailed guidance is appropriately split out of the overview. This is a direct match for anchor 5 ("Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation"); score 4 would have less clearly signaled or less cleanly split references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |