Content
80%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 an efficient, well-structured overview that defers detail appropriately to a real reference file. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit validation/retry loop for a batch import operation, which caps workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after import (e.g., verify reconstructed state against source text, and fix/re-run on mismatch) to lift workflow clarity above the destructive/batch cap of 3.
Number the steps into a clear sequence (intent → preserve order → confirm continuation point → import → validate → report) so the workflow reads as ordered rather than as a list of principles.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | A lean ~13-line body that assumes Claude's competence — no padding, no explaining what a manuscript or canon is, and every bullet earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance: three named intent modes (import_chapters, ingest_material, manage_book_reference) and a precise post-import reporting checklist; minor gaps remain in how reconstruction/gap-detection is actually performed, but that is appropriately deferred to the reference. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A roughly sequenced list of principles exists with implicit checkpoints ('Confirm the continuation point', 'Mark uncertainty'), but importing chapters into an active book is a batch/destructive operation without an explicit validate-then-retry feedback loop, so the cap at 3 applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview body with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('Load references/reconstruction-rubric.md for large or inconsistent manuscripts') that resolves to a real file; navigation is easy and content is appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |