Content
78%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 content is a tight, actionable overview that assumes competence and uses two well-signaled reference files for detail; its main gap is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints and a document template, which keep workflow clarity and actionability at 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and never explains concepts Claude already knows; a few guardrail-style phrasings ("a known answer does not need another confirmation echo") could be trimmed, fitting anchor 4 rather than a pristine 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete inclusion checklist (component/service boundaries, data ownership, integration contracts, deployment target, failure behavior) and a concrete output path ("docs/TechDesign-[AppName]-MVP.md"), but offers no template or format spec, matching anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear logical sequence runs read → inspect → ask → describe → record → output path → handoff → continue to next stage, but validation checkpoints are only implicit ("how the result will be checked" is to be recorded, not performed), fitting anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an overview that points to two real, one-level-deep references (references/question-bank.md and references/cli-output.md), each clearly signaled and gated by a condition, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |