Content
68%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 well-structured and actionable with concrete investigation commands, but lacks an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints and carries some redundancy between the investigation-areas and key-questions sections.
Suggestions
Add a short numbered workflow (e.g., run investigation commands → triage candidate issues → check against 'What a valid finding looks like' → report) with an explicit validation step before reporting.
Merge or trim the 'Key questions' section since it restates the 'Primary investigation areas', to reduce token redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean with concrete commands and no concept explanations Claude already knows, though the 'Key questions' section largely restates the 'Primary investigation areas', adding mild redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready `rg` commands for finding endpoints, validation, SQL, auth, and schema, plus a concrete 'What a valid finding looks like' list — minor gaps in covering all common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Investigation areas and focus targets are listed but there is no explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for triaging/reporting findings, leaving the process checkpoints implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single self-contained file with well-organized section headers and no bundle files to navigate; structure is clear, with only minor room to tighten the redundant 'Key questions' section. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |