Content
67%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 well-structured, actionable audit workflow with concrete git commands and a clear report template. Its main weakness is conciseness: conceptual preamble and hardcoded example dates add tokens that do not earn their place.
Suggestions
Trim the conceptual preamble (FPF Canonical Evolution Loop B.4, Epistemic Debt B.3.4) to a one-line purpose statement; Claude does not need the framework explained.
Replace hardcoded dates in the baseline/report examples with placeholders (e.g., `<ISO8601 timestamp>`, `<commit>`) to avoid time-sensitive staleness.
Add an explicit validation/retry note for the failure case where `.fpf/.baseline` is missing or the git diff is empty, to close the workflow-clarity gap toward 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient step-by-step commands, but the intro explains FPF/Epistemic-Debt concepts Claude need not be taught and the report/baseline templates embed time-sensitive hardcoded dates (2025-01-15). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete git commands and specific paths/fields (`.fpf/evidence/`, `carrier_ref`, `.fpf/decisions/`) are provided; the analysis steps are described rather than fully scripted, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six steps are clearly sequenced with a user-confirmation checkpoint (Step 2.3) and graceful baseline fallback; it is a read-only audit so the destructive-cap does not apply, but explicit error/validation feedback loops are absent. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single self-contained file is well-sectioned (Action, File, When to Run), though at ~125 lines the large inline worked-report template could arguably live in a reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |