Content
72%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 lean, well-structured, and provides concrete executable commands for both generation phases. Its main weakness is workflow validation: only Phase A has an approval checkpoint and Phase B lacks verification before delivery, capping workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add a verification/approval checkpoint after Phase B (e.g., "Present the final video and confirm it meets the user's expectations before finishing; regenerate if motion or framing is off").
Resolve the model-ID/CLI-alias ambiguity inline by stating which models already have CLI aliases versus which require the curl fallback, instead of leaving it conditional.
Add a brief failure-recovery loop for Phase A (what to do if the dynamic image is rejected) parallel to the existing approval step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; only minor redundancy (the bold restatement of the description and the curl fallback template) keeps it just below level 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete `muapi image edit` and `muapi video from-image` commands with explicit model IDs and full prompt strings are mostly executable, with minor gaps (the curl fallback is a template rather than a complete call). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Two phases are clearly sequenced with an approval checkpoint after Phase A, but Phase B has no validation/verification checkpoint before presenting output; for a generative/batch operation the missing feedback loop caps workflow clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no external references needed and well-organized sections (Inputs, Steps, Trigger Keywords, Notes); per the simple-skills scoring note this qualifies for level 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |