Content
87%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.
An exemplary overview file: token-lean, fully executable quick-reference code, and textbook progressive disclosure with real, well-triggered reference files. The one notable weakness is workflow clarity — the build flow (plan → implement → ship) has no validation or testing checkpoint for the produced server.
Suggestions
Add a final workflow step with a concrete verification action, e.g. 'After implementing, run the server and confirm each tool/resource/prompt is registered before delivering' — this would lift the missing checkpoint in the Before You Code → Implementation sequence.
Follow through on the 'Decide what needs UI vs text' step with an explicit decision checkpoint (e.g. one line stating when to choose a widget over a text response) rather than leaving it implicit in the linked reference.
Either show a minimal `widget()` usage inline or drop the unused `widget` import from the Quick Reference so the example remains exactly copy-paste runnable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: a two-line design directive, four task-to-reference routing lines, one compact Quick Reference block, and two one-line API lists. No concept explanations Claude already knows, no padding — every section earns its tokens, matching the 'lean and efficient' 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The Quick Reference is copy-paste-ready TypeScript with real imports, working tool/resource/prompt registrations, and `server.listen()`, covering the common cases; helper and server-method inventories are enumerated. The unused `widget` import has no inline example, but widgets are delegated to a dedicated reference file, so this is within the 5 anchor's 'specific examples cover the common cases'. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear two-phase sequence exists (Before You Code: decompose and read design doc → Implementation: route by task type), but there are no checkpoints at all — no step to run or test the built server, verify tool schemas, or validate output. This matches the 3 anchor ('sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'); it is above 2 (sequence is well-defined, not rough) and below 4, which requires most checkpoints present. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 80-line body is a pure overview: all five references/ files exist on disk, are linked one level deep, and each link carries an explicit 'when to read this' trigger (e.g. 'when writing server-side `server.tool()` code', 'when defining parameterized resources'). The Quick Reference inline code is appropriately sized for an overview, matching the 5 anchor's well-signaled one-level-deep structure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |