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 admirably lean and gives actionable interviewing directives, but it lacks a sequenced workflow with checkpoints and its Additional Resources references all point to missing files, breaking progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Provide the referenced bundle files (python-basic.md, database.md, django-flask.md, redis.md) or remove the broken references and inline the essential material.
Reorder the instructions into an explicit sequenced workflow (e.g. select category -> draft question -> prepare follow-ups -> require a real-incident probe) with a verification step that the question is follow-up-able.
Add one or two concrete example questions or an output format template to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~16 lines with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every directive earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Instructions are concrete directives ('优先考察框架实践、数据库设计、缓存策略与部署经验', '每道题都要可追问', '至少一次要求候选人描述真实线上问题和排障步骤') that tell Claude exactly what to do, though it lacks example questions or an output format template. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four numbered instructions are parallel rules rather than a sequenced process, and no validation/checkpoint steps exist; a loose sequence is implied only in '出题前优先参考这些资料,并按分类落题', matching the 'steps listed but checkpoints missing' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are clearly signaled and one-level deep with category→file mapping (PYTHON_BASIC -> python-basic.md, etc.), but none of the referenced files (python-basic.md, database.md, django-flask.md, redis.md) exist in the bundle, so navigation does not resolve, keeping it below the 4/5 anchors. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |