Content
61%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 lean, well-structured, and clear about the single-mission contract and artifact layout. Its main weaknesses are the absence of executable/validated workflow steps and a missing error-recovery feedback loop for the iterative evaluation cycle.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after persisting evaluation JSON (e.g. confirm the file is well-formed and contains the required 'pass' field) before appending the decision log.
Provide at least one concrete runnable example of invoking the evaluator and writing an evaluation JSON entry, rather than only describing it abstractly.
Include a short feedback-loop note for the non-passing case (how to decide the next experiment from a failed evaluation) so the iterate->evaluate->persist cycle is actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, using compact tagged sections that avoid explaining concepts Claude already knows; only minor phrasing could be tightened further. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in artifact shape (directory layout, JSON fields) but the workflow steps are directives rather than executable commands, and the evaluator is referenced abstractly without a runnable example. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The iteration loop is clearly sequenced, but it involves batch/iterative destructive operations with no explicit validation checkpoint (e.g. verifying evaluation JSON is valid/persisted) and no error-recovery feedback loop, which caps clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into focused tagged sections with a compact inline artifact shape and clear separation of concerns; no bundle files exist so references are minimal and appropriately one-level, with only minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |