Content
88%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced monitoring workflow with executable commands and explicit validation/feedback loops. Its main weakness is minor redundancy across the step bodies, Important Notes, and Error Handling sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, giving concrete commands without explaining known concepts; minor redundancy between the step bodies, 'Important Notes', and 'Error Handling' keeps it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands cover the common cases — `yarn agent:check --json-file`, `gh run view --log-failed`, GraphQL resolveReviewThread mutations, and `gh api ... replies` — with concrete examples for failed checks, threads, and gate blockers. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced poll loop with explicit validation checkpoints (Step 1c decision table, fixable-vs-preexisting verification, per-iteration CLOSED/MERGED state check) and feedback loops (fix -> push -> wait 30s -> re-poll), satisfying the destructive/batch validation requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections (Usage, Input, Step 0-4, Polling Rules, Important Notes, Error Handling) and appropriately self-contained with no bundle files; minor organization gaps from duplicated guidance keep it from 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |