Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with concrete commands and schemas and a clear two-phase workflow, but it carries some redundant inline content and references a non-existent prompts/ directory, weakening both conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Create the referenced prompts/ directory with build_repo_acquisition_query.md and build_code_survey_query.md, or remove those references and the directory diagram entries to match the actual bundle.
Add an explicit Phase B validation checkpoint (e.g., verify every atomic concept has a located implementation before finalizing the survey) to close the missing feedback loop for the batch survey.
De-duplicate the path-conventions table and move the full survey query template out of the body to the referenced prompt file to tighten conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely actionable and dense, but repeats path conventions already in the references and reproduces the full survey query template and long cache JSON blocks inline, which could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands (git clone --depth 1, curl to the GitHub API, python scripts/github_search_clone.py with concrete flags), concrete JSON cache schemas, exact file paths, and a tool-replacement table. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear two-phase numbered sequence with per-phase checklists and an A4 clone-verification step, but Phase B's batch survey lacks an explicit validation/feedback loop, which caps batch-operation workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good overview with one-level-deep references to real files (references/*.md, scripts/*.py), but the body and directory diagram repeatedly reference a prompts/ directory and two prompt .md files that do not exist in the bundle. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |