Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with specific muapi commands and prompts, and reasonably well-structured, but repeats content and lacks a validation checkpoint for the batch generation workflow. Tightening redundancy and adding a verification step would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step after generation (e.g. confirm each asset rendered and matches the requested aspect ratio before presenting the set).
Remove the duplicated description header (line 12) and merge the two 'Notes' sections to reduce redundancy.
Fix the typo 'Submit a SINGLE the plan' and consider moving the long per-asset prompts into a reference file for cleaner progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete prompts, but repeats the frontmatter description as a bold header (line 12) and has two separate 'Notes' sections (lines 60 and 72) that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands with explicit model IDs (`muapi image edit` model=`nano-banana-pro-edit`), aspect ratios, and full prompts — fully executable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases A/B/C are sequenced with parallelization noted, but this batch generation workflow has no validation/verification checkpoint, capping workflow clarity at 2 per the rubric. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Inputs/Steps/Notes sections in a single ~70-line file with no external references, but all lengthy prompts live inline with no reference structure, fitting the level-2 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |