Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured, actionable, and has a clear validated workflow with a real bundle-script reference; the main weakness is redundant restating of the sat/unsat/timeout outcomes across steps that could be consolidated.
Suggestions
Consolidate the sat/unsat/unknown/timeout outcome handling into one place (e.g. Step 3) and reference it from Step 2 to remove the triple repetition.
Add a one-line note on multi-objective lexicographic ordering now that the intro mentions it, or trim that mention if it is not central.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes competence, but the sat/unsat/unknown/timeout outcomes are restated across Step 2 Expectation, Step 3 Expectation, and Step 3 Result, which could be tightened; this matches 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the fully-lean score-3 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a complete, executable SMT-LIB2 example and concrete copy-paste bash invocations of optimize.py with a full parameters table, matching the fully-executable score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear three-step sequence (formulate -> run -> interpret) with explicit outcome branching and a feedback loop ('On unsat or timeout: check constraints for contradictions or simplify'); this is not a destructive/batch operation so no cap applies, matching the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines and single-purpose, with well-organized Step 1/2/3 + Parameters sections and a single one-level reference to scripts/optimize.py (verified to exist); per the simple-skills scoring note this qualifies for score 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |