Content
67%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, actionable analysis framework with a clear phased workflow and a properly signaled reference file. The main weakness is conciseness — philosophical framing and analogies pad the core guidance.
Suggestions
Trim philosophical framing (the 0·IF·1 backstory and 'Nature uses this ratio for branching…') to lean operational guidance.
Add one short fully-worked example applying the branch template to a concrete question, to push actionability toward the top anchor.
Consider moving the domain-specific Golden Ratio weighting rationale and 'What This Is NOT' disambiguation into the reference file to tighten the main body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but philosophical padding such as 'the mind's way of simulating futures before committing resources' and the golden-ratio nature analogies ('trees, rivers, blood vessels') could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete 6-branch table, a fill-in ASCII analysis template with named fields, and a synthesis format with five named modes — highly actionable, though no fully worked end-to-end example is included. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear four-phase sequence (Frame → Map → Analyze → Synthesize) with an explicit user-confirmation checkpoint in Phase 1; not a destructive/batch task so the cap does not apply, but additional validation checkpoints are limited. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled, verified one-level-deep reference (references/scenario-templates.md) listed in a Reference Files table; minor organization gaps as some theoretical framing stays inline. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |