Content
71%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 a well-structured, actionable multi-step workflow with concrete commands and validation checkpoints for a batch requirement-analysis operation. Its weaknesses are a dangling reference to a non-existent dependency-types file and some duplicated tree-diagram content that could be trimmed.
Suggestions
Either supply the referenced ../../references/dependency-types.md file or inline the dependency-type judgment conditions directly in the body, since the current reference resolves to a missing file.
Remove the duplicated requirement hierarchy tree — keep it only in the final output block (section 5) or only in the structural illustration (section 2.4), not both verbatim.
Add an explicit validation step after saving .tmp/{ID}.md files (e.g. confirm each description was written non-empty) before proceeding to dependency extraction and DAG construction.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely procedural and domain-specific rather than explaining concepts Claude already knows, but repeats the requirement hierarchy tree verbatim (the spec block at lines 82-91 and the output block at 167-186) and restates the 'description is already Markdown, no conversion needed' point, which are trimmable. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance — cross-platform mkdir commands, the exact stories_get call with workspace_id/iteration_id/limit=200, the {ID}.md naming rule, and a classification table — but offloads the core dependency-type judgment conditions to ../../references/dependency-types.md, leaving a gap in the executable path. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced five-step process with real validation checkpoints — '检测是否存在环依赖，如有则提示用户确认并协助解除' (cycle feedback loop) and '验证依赖有效性' (dependency validation) — though there is no validation that the saved .tmp/*.md files are complete/well-formed before building the DAG. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are reasonably organized and one reference is explicitly signaled ('具体的依赖类型判定条件见 ../../references/dependency-types.md'), but that referenced file does not exist (no references/ directory is present), so the navigation path leads to a missing file and the dependency-type detail is neither inline nor reachable. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |