Content
81%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.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced operational spec with strong validation and error-recovery loops and a sound one-level reference structure. Its main weakness is verbosity — repeated defensive caveats and inlined contract/template detail that could be trimmed or externalized.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated jq-null / extract_json.py guard into one stated-once convention referenced thereafter, cutting several restated paragraphs.
Move the full verbose-mode output template and the complete keyword-recognition tables into a reference file, keeping only the friendly-mode summary rule and a pointer inline.
Trim the defensive 'do not over-read the step name' / 'do not map onto subagent-driven-development' prose to a single concise scoping note.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is operational rather than explanatory of basics, which is good, but it carries noticeable defensive padding — the Step 1 'Scope' warnings, repeated 'do not map onto subagent-driven-development' caveats, and the same jq-null / extract_json.py guard restated at each API boundary could be tightened without losing clarity. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready bash for every scriptable step (sn_agent_runner.py invocations with exact flags, jq pipelines, mkdir, heredoc assembly) plus exact JSON schemas and file paths; the few prose-described steps (VLM response mapping, structured-content generation) are inherently LLM-judgment steps that cannot be fully scripted. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–4 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints at every API boundary (status == ok checks, extract_json.py exit codes), feedback loops (failed envelope → Error Flow; eval failure → conservative should_expand=true fallback), and an early-termination gate — matching the top anchor for batch operations with error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Reference files are real, one level deep, and clearly signaled (analysis-framework, layout-style-selection, layouts/, styles/, etc., all listed in a References section and confirmed to exist), and bulk detail is split out appropriately; however the body itself is long, inlining the full Return Contract, verbose output-format templates, and complete keyword-extraction tables that could partly live in references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |