Content
53%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.
The body is commendably lean and covers a sensible end-to-end arc (criteria, implementation, verification, reporting), but it stays entirely at the altitude of abstract principles. Without a single concrete command, example, or explicit checkpoint, Claude reading it knows the intent but not the executable steps.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable anchors for the vague directives — e.g., example commands for running 'the project's affected checks' (test/build/lint invocation patterns) and what 'exercising the user journey' concretely looks like.
Number the workflow steps and make the validation checkpoints explicit (e.g., a '4. Run checks; if failures are caused by this change, fix and re-run' style sequence) instead of leaving the sequence implicit in prose.
Add short section headings (e.g., '## Criteria', '## Implement', '## Verify', '## Report') so the structure is scannable rather than inferred from paragraphs.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~150 words) with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every paragraph carries guidance. It falls just short of anchor 5 because a few abstract sentences (e.g., the MEMORY.md aside) could be tightened or merged, matching anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance is entirely abstract: "Implement the intended behavior using the chosen stack", "Use the project's affected checks and exercise the relevant user journey" — no commands, code, examples, or specific steps. It matches anchor 2 ('high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'), not 1, because it does instruct an ordered set of high-level actions rather than merely describing. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A sequence is identifiable (establish criteria → implement → run checks/user journey → fix failures → report), and validation ideas exist but only implicitly ("Continue until the requested slice works", "distinguish pre-existing failures"), with no explicit checkpoints or commands. This matches anchor 3 ('sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'), not 4, which requires most checkpoints explicitly. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the ~24-line body is topically organized paragraph-by-paragraph with nothing that belongs in a separate file — close to the simple-skill ideal. It falls short of 5 ('well-organized sections') because there are no section headings at all, so structure is inferred from prose rather than scannable, matching anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |