Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, highly actionable, and well-structured with properly signaled one-level references, but it pushes the validation/feedback-loop detail into a referenced file rather than surfacing the key checkpoints inline for the outward-facing PR-comment step.
Suggestions
Add an inline validation checkpoint before the 'Post report' step (e.g. verify the local report file exists and the diff was non-empty before running gh pr comment) to support a feedback loop.
Surface a brief 'if no call sites found / if diff is metadata-only, report accordingly' decision step inline so error recovery is visible without opening the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned — it jumps straight into workflow, commands, and output without explaining concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands (curl|tar for download, diff -rq, grep with include/exclude flags, npm view, gh pr comment) plus concrete output paths, matching the high anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 10-step workflow is clearly sequenced, but explicit validation checkpoints and a validate→fix→retry feedback loop are not present in the body (they live in the referenced review-workflow.md); for an outward-facing operation like posting a PR comment this caps clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview with a Quick Reference table signals one-level-deep references to review-workflow.md, report-template.md, and example-report.md — all verified to exist as real files — and detailed content is appropriately split out. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |