Content
63%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 body is a well-structured, highly actionable audit playbook rich with real domain specifics, with clear sequencing and useful validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are some repetition and meta-padding that hurt conciseness, and a signaled reference to a references/ file that does not exist in the bundle.
Suggestions
Create the referenced references/contributing-surveys.md (or remove the dangling link) so the signaled progressive-disclosure path resolves to a real file.
De-duplicate Common Pitfalls items #8 and #9 against Step 5's rendering/Android guidance to tighten conciseness.
Extract the issue template and output-format blocks into a separate reference file to reduce inline bulk and improve navigation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most content is genuine PostHog-specific domain knowledge Claude lacks (exact SDK file paths, utility functions, pitfall examples) that earns its place, but the Common Pitfalls section repeats Step 5 material (Android delegate-only, rendering-code checks) and the Post-Audit section adds meta-process padding that could be tightened, fitting the 'mostly efficient but some unnecessary explanation' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The body provides concrete, executable commands (grep, git log -S, git tag --contains, gh issue list/create/edit) with exact file paths and a copy-paste output format, but template placeholders (KEYWORD, X.Y.Z, COMMIT_HASH) require substitution, fitting the 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' anchor rather than fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The audit process is clearly sequenced (Setup Check, Steps 1-5, issue creation, backfill, completion checklist) with validation checkpoints (path verification, search-before-create, temp-file review before pushing), but the core audit Steps 2-4 are sequential without explicit validate-and-retry feedback loops, fitting the 'clear sequence with most checkpoints; minor validation gaps' anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear section headers give the body reasonable structure, and one reference is signaled ('read [Contributing survey changes](references/contributing-surveys.md)'), but no references/ bundle directory exists so that link is dangling, and sizable content that could live in separate files (issue template, output format) is inlined, fitting the 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not backed by real files' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |