Content
85%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 research workflow with clear sequencing and clean progressive disclosure. The relative lows are conciseness (mild Edge Cases redundancy) and actionability (no search-query templates), both at 4.
Suggestions
Trim the Edge Cases section to only cases not already covered by the Phase 2 degradation rules (e.g., 'file path doesn't exist', 'codebase search returns nothing') to remove redundancy and tighten conciseness.
Add 1–2 example WebSearch query templates per web dimension to make the existing-solutions and competitor searches more directly executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The four-phase structure is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the Edge Cases section largely restates already-given degradation rules (WebSearch unavailable, no codebase, vague idea), a minor instance of content that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Names concrete tools (WebSearch, Glob, Grep, Read), quotes exact prompts, and specifies output formats (comparison table with name/description/pros/cons/relevance), but lacks example search-query templates, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Intake → Research → Synthesis → Handoff sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (confirm understanding, clarifying-question gate, Phase 4 review) and degradation rules acting as error-recovery feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview pointing to two well-signaled one-level-deep references (references/research-template.md, references/dimensions.md), both verified to exist, with detail appropriately split into those files. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |