Content
77%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 well-structured with a clear, validated workflow and clean progressive disclosure, but is let down by repeated scope-guard prose and jargon padding that could be tightened without losing meaning.
Suggestions
Consolidate the scope guard: state the 'designs only, hands off execution/analysis/authoring' boundary once instead of repeating it in the intro, the Scope Guard paragraph, and the Data Sources/Instructions sections.
Trim repeated protocol jargon (measurement-contract / evidence-observation / action-receipt) to a single defining mention plus a pointer to the binding reference.
Collapse the frontmatter description's exclusion list and the body's 'Not for…' lines into one canonical handoff list to remove duplicate tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but padded: the scope guard and 'not for running/analyzing/authoring' exclusions are restated across the frontmatter, intro, and a dedicated Scope Guard paragraph, and protocol jargon is repeated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | An 8-step procedure with concrete thresholds (≥70% restate), exact memory paths, and an executable experiment.py proportion command gives mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clearly sequenced steps with explicit checkpoints: a NEEDS_INPUT stop, 'Done when' criteria, a failed-test stop/revise feedback loop, and termination/max-depth rules. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with a single well-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/stimulus-binding.md, confirmed present and non-chaining) and clean section organization. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |