Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with a clear sequenced workflow and validation checkpoints, supported by real one-level references; its main weaknesses are the bulky inline templates in the early steps and some redundant intro/trigger prose that hurt conciseness and disclosure structure.
Suggestions
Move the step 1–2 (Crawlability, Indexability) markdown table templates into references/technical-audit-templates.md alongside steps 3–9 so the main body stays a lean overview.
Trim the duplicated trigger/intro material — the "When This Must Trigger" section and the opening sentences overlap and could be consolidated.
Consider compressing the placeholder-heavy inline tables to a compact schema, keeping the full templates in the reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body largely avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the large inline table templates in steps 1–2 and the duplicated trigger/intro prose could be tightened; it is mostly efficient but not lean enough for the top anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete audit templates with specific fields, a ready-to-use robots.txt snippet, explicit memory file paths, and named data sources — copy-paste ready and specific rather than abstract. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 9-step audit process is paired with explicit Input and Output Validation Checkpoints; as a read-only diagnostic there are no destructive batch steps requiring validate-fix-retry loops. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are real, one level deep, and well-signaled, but the step 1–2 table templates are kept inline while the equivalent steps 3–9 are offloaded to the templates file, leaving content that should be separate inline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |