Content
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a strong, actionable, well-sequenced QA workflow with executable browser commands and per-interaction validation. Its main weakness is a dangling reference to a non-existent report template, which slightly undermines progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Create the missing templates/dogfood-report-template.md referenced in Phase 5, or inline the report template so the reference resolves.
Tighten the minor redundancy between the Phase 2 inline examples, the Tools Reference table, and the Tips section.
Optionally add a brief error-recovery note for navigation or tool failures to strengthen the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, using executable tool calls instead of explaining what browsers or QA are; minor repetition between inline examples, the Tools Reference table, and Tips keeps it from being wasteful but does not push it to verbose. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready browser commands with real parameters (e.g. browser_navigate(url=...), browser_vision(question=..., annotate=true), browser_click(ref='@eN')) throughout the workflow. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 5-phase workflow with per-interaction validation checkpoints (console errors, visual changes, expected vs actual) in Phase 2 and a de-duplication pass in Phase 4; the operation is non-destructive so the missing destructive-op feedback loop does not apply. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | It signals a one-level-deep reference to the real references/issue-taxonomy.md, but Phase 5 also references templates/dogfood-report-template.md which does not exist, leaving a dangling reference that weakens navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |