Content
77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, actionable multi-phase research workflow with strong sequencing, checkpoints, and executable code. Its main weakness is conciseness — the 'document, don't evaluate' directive is restated redundantly across several sections — and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure of the inline template and prompt library.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated 'document, don't evaluate' guidance (Core Philosophy, Golden Rule, CRITICAL: Documentarian Only, Critical Reminders, Success Criteria) into a single concise 'Principles' section to reduce redundancy.
Move the research-document template and the agent prompt library into referenced bundle files (e.g. references/research-template.md, references/agent-prompts.md) and link to them one level deep to improve progressive disclosure.
Tighten the phase checkpoint checklists or fold them into the phase steps so the same verification is not restated as both inline guidance and a trailing checklist.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | It largely assumes Claude's competence (no padding about what a codebase or agent is), but ~390 lines restate the 'document, don't evaluate' directive across 'Core Philosophy', 'Golden Rule', 'CRITICAL: Documentarian Only', 'Critical Reminders', and 'Success Criteria', and repeats checklist structures that could be tightened. Not a 3 due to this redundant scaffolding; not a 1 because it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready agent prompts, executable bash (the byte-identical PRP store resolver, git metadata commands), a complete research-document template, and real usage examples. Not a 2 because the code is fully executable rather than pseudocode and key details are present. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Six phases are clearly sequenced each with an explicit 'PHASE_N_CHECKPOINT' validation checklist, with Phase 4 identifying gaps and Phase 5 handling follow-up feedback loops. Not a 2 because validation checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit; the operations are read/research rather than destructive, so the destructive-feedback cap does not apply. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | It is a monolithic ~390-line file with well-organized sections but no bundle files or one-level-deep references; the document template and agent prompt library are inline content that could be split out. Not a 3 because it is too long for the simple-skill allowance and lacks signaled external references; not a 1 because section organization is clear rather than a wall of text. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |