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, mostly executable workflow with concrete commands, naming rules, templates, and a validation checkpoint. Its weaknesses are repetition across examples and output sections plus a draft/todo path inconsistency.
Suggestions
Resolve the draft/ vs todo/ inconsistency: Section 5 references .specs/tasks/todo/ while the Goal and Success Criteria require .specs/tasks/draft/ — pick one and apply it everywhere.
Collapse the three repetitive example templates into one annotated example plus a short table of name/type variations to cut redundancy.
Add a one-line recovery step when the uniqueness check fails (e.g. append a numeric suffix and re-verify) to close the workflow-clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient instruction content, but the three near-identical example templates and the overlap between Expected Output, Success Criteria, and Examples could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete script command, an explicit file-naming convention with worked examples, and a copy-paste task-file template; a minor draft/ vs todo/ path inconsistency is the main gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence with an explicit uniqueness-verification checkpoint and a success-criteria checklist; the only gap is no stated recovery action when a name collision is found. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Role/Goal/Instructions/Constraints/Success Criteria/Examples with no deep nesting, though at ~200 lines it is beyond the simple-skill threshold that would merit a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |