Content
86%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 a tight, well-structured overview that names concrete tools and analytical lenses and cleanly defers detail to a one-level reference. Its only real gap is that the analytical 'how-to' lives entirely in the reference file rather than being partly inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean bullet list that assumes Claude's competence, names specific analytical lenses without over-explaining them, and avoids padding or restating concepts Claude already knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Names concrete tools ('research_web', 'ingest_material') and specific recombination guidance ('different characters, causes, evidence, and consequences'); not a 5 because the mechanics of how to evaluate each lens are delegated to the reference rather than given inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear implied gather→analyze→recommend progression plus an explicit guardrail ('Research does not authorize generation… move through the normal confirmation flow'); not a 5 because steps are bullets rather than an explicitly numbered sequence with checkpoints. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview that points to a single real, well-signaled one-level-deep reference ('Load references/short-market-rubric.md for a full benchmark report'); the referenced file exists, so content is appropriately split and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |