Content
72%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 content is concise and well-structured but stops at high-level process description without executable guidance or validation checkpoints. Adding concrete tool-call examples and verification steps would lift the actionability and workflow scores.
Suggestions
Add executable examples showing how to call search_arxiv and search_semantic_scholar (parameters, expected return shape).
Insert validation checkpoints, e.g. confirm dedup succeeded and rank-by-relevance criteria before gap analysis, and verify hypotheses address identified gaps.
Provide a concrete method for generating the 5-8 queries (e.g., keyword expansion or a templated prompt) rather than a bare directive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete direction ('Generate 5-8 diverse search queries', 'Search arXiv and Semantic Scholar') but lack executable code, tool-call syntax, or a concrete method for query generation and dedup, leaving guidance incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six steps are clearly sequenced, but no validation checkpoints exist for batch operations (dedup/rank), so per the batch-operation cap workflow clarity cannot exceed 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the body is under 50 lines with clean section headers and no need for external references, meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |