Content
92%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 tightly written, well-sequenced workflow with concrete commands, explicit validation/feedback checkpoints, and appropriate one-level reference delegation; its only weakness is that the central taste-proposal task is inherently qualitative, slightly limiting copy-paste actionability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, opinionated prose that assumes Claude's competence with no padding or explanation of basic concepts; every sentence (e.g., 'Skip anything a survey already answers… That's architecture.') earns its place as project-specific calibration. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable guidance — 'Run `scripts/mine_review_comments.sh` (last 100 merged PRs by default)', 'Ask which they want (`AskUserQuestion`, multi-select)', 'an accurate `<!-- paths: -->` glob' — but the core taste/proposal work is qualitative rather than copy-paste-ready, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 6-step process with explicit validation (§6: 'Check that every path resolves, every glob matches something'), a feedback loop (§4 confirm-one-at-a-time: state, get a yes, write, show, next), and a checklist (§3 drop conditions); the destructive/batch cap does not apply since validation is present and batch-writing is explicitly forbidden. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into six labeled sections with one clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference ('Run `scripts/mine_review_comments.sh`', which exists in the bundle); the script's detailed behavior is delegated rather than restated, and no inlined content clearly belongs in a separate file. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |