Content
81%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-sequenced, actionable research workflow with strong validation checkpoints and a real supporting script bundle. Main improvements would be consolidating repeated placeholder-cleanup guidance and clarifying the exact tool/API names used in the code examples.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated placeholder-cleanup rules (sections 4, 5.1, 5.3) into one canonical checklist to reduce redundancy.
Replace illustrative tool calls (file_write/file_update) with the actual executable tool/API names or note them as placeholders explicitly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence, though the placeholder-cleanup guidance is repeated across sections 4, 5.1, 5.3, and the checklist, which could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete commands (init_research.py, md_to_html.py) and code patterns for file_write/file_update, but uses illustrative tool names rather than a verified executable API, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Presents a clear 6-step sequence with an explicit user-confirmation checkpoint, a dedicated quality-check section (step 5), and a final checklist providing strong validation and feedback-loop structure. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured overview that references real bundle files (scripts/init_research.py, scripts/md_to_html.py) at one level deep, with only minor gaps where template specifics are deferred. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |