Content
86%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.
An exceptionally lean, well-structured investigation methodology with explicit gating checkpoints and no token waste. Its only gap is the absence of a worked example or error-recovery loop to push actionability and workflow clarity to full marks.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example (e.g., symptom -> top hypothesis -> falsifying check -> confirmed cause) to make the ranking method concrete and lift actionability.
Add an explicit error-recovery step ('if no hypothesis survives falsification, widen the trace or restate the symptom') to give workflow clarity a feedback loop.
Optionally include a one-line stopping criterion format for the reported proof so the output is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line is actionable guidance with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific instruction ('Trace inputs, state transitions, ownership boundaries, and failure output'; 'Rank hypotheses by evidence and cheap falsification value') with only minor gaps and no worked example, fitting 'mostly executable guidance; minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste-ready 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence with explicit gating checkpoints ('Do not edit until one credible mechanism explains evidence'; 'Stop exploration when evidence is sufficient'), but no error-recovery feedback loop, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, no external references needed, and well-organized (title, framing sentence, bulleted method, closing instruction), so the simple-skill exception awards 5 for clean structure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |