Content
65%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 well-structured with executable commands and excellent progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but it lacks any validation checkpoint before the destructive commit-and-push of batch file changes, and carries some repetition across sections.
Suggestions
Insert a validation step before Step 5 (e.g. verify the build number resolves to 10 digits and confirm each of the 6 files was actually modified) and only commit/push once checks pass.
De-duplicate: keep the build-number formula and file list in one place (Quick Reference or Workflow, not both) to reduce token overhead.
Inline at least one concrete before/after example for the highest-risk file edit (e.g. the BUILD_NUMBER hardcode in release-android.yml) so the core task is actionable without opening the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the build-number formula and version pattern are stated twice (Quick Reference and Steps 1-2), and the "Files to Modify" table restates Step 4 — content that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Bash/git commands (build-number calc, branch, commit/push) are concrete and executable, and file paths are specific; the per-file edit specifics are deferred to the reference, leaving only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence exists, but this is a batch operation (6 files) ending in a git push with no validation or verification step before committing — the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3 for destructive/batch workflows lacking validation. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference to the real references/rules/upgrade-test-version.md file, with detail appropriately split out and easy navigation via section headers. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |