Content
71%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 dense, actionable reference body with a clear validated workflow and strong progressive-disclosure intent. Its main weakness is that every referenced bundle file (references/cell-models.md, indent-layout-styles.md, editor-patterns.md, editor-components.md, stylesheet-values.md) is missing, so the carefully signaled navigation leads nowhere.
Suggestions
Ship the five referenced files under references/ so the Reference Index links resolve; otherwise inline the most critical JSON blueprint (the minimal ConceptEditorDeclaration template) directly in the body.
Add an explicit validate→fix→re-validate feedback loop to the Common Workflow so the validation checkpoint matches the destructive/batch-operation standard.
Confirm the cross-skill relative link ../mps-mcp-workflow/references/aspect-model-stereotypes.md resolves, since the body depends on it for the create-model path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's MPS knowledge — directives like 'Always use CellModel_RefNodeList for 0..n or 1..n children' earn their place without explaining basics. Only the dense empty-state directive could be tightened slightly, placing it just below a perfect 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable guidance — exact style-class item names, readOnly flags, and specific MCP tool calls (mps_mcp_scaffold_editor, mcp_print_node, mcp_check_root_node_problems). It falls short of 5 only because the copy-paste JSON blueprints live in the references rather than inline in the body. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence (step 0 check existence through step 5 validate) with an explicit validation checkpoint via mcp_check_root_node_problems. Not a 5 because the error-recovery feedback loop ('if validation fails, fix and re-validate') is only weakly implied rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The structure is well-signaled with a one-level-deep Reference Index pointing to five references/*.md files, but none of those bundle files actually exist, so navigation is broken — this matches 'references present but not clearly signaled / could be better organized' when scored against the actual bundle. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |