Content
75%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 body is a well-structured, actionable overview with executable examples and clear progressive disclosure to real reference files. The main gap is verification rigor: for markup/build-mutating workflows it leans on manual smoke tests rather than explicit automated validate-fix-retry loops.
Suggestions
Add explicit automated validation checkpoints with commands (e.g., a WP-CLI or build command to confirm directives process and the module enqueues) instead of relying only on a manual smoke test.
Provide a concrete validate→fix→retry loop in the debugging section for the most common failure (directives present but inert) so Claude can iterate rather than guess.
Tighten the procedure's bulleted sub-points into imperative, copy-pasteable checks to lift conciseness and actionability toward 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean content that assumes Claude's competence — no padding explaining what WordPress or directives are — with tight code examples; a few procedural bullets could still be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable PHP/JSON snippets and names specific functions and directive syntax (wp_interactivity_state(), wp_interactivity_data_wp_context(), viewScriptModule, the scaffold template), with only minor gaps in coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced six-step procedure plus dedicated Verification and Failure-modes sections; checkpoints are present though feedback loops are more manual (smoke test) than explicit validate→fix→retry command cycles. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body acts as an overview pointing to three real, one-level-deep reference files (server-side-rendering.md, directives-quickref.md, debugging.md), clearly signaled inline and in Escalation, with the bulk detail appropriately split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |