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 body is highly actionable and workflow-rich, with concrete tool calls, CLI fallbacks, explicit validation checkpoints, and a realistic worked example. Its only real weakness is that some explanatory prose in the binding and risk sections could be tightened for token efficiency.
Suggestions
Tighten the "Bind the repository first" paragraph — the pagination, default-policy, and ambiguity guidance could be condensed into a shorter decision rule.
Consider moving the detailed risk-field semantics (riskSharedAxes, riskScale.unusedAxes, group vs single-repo mode) into a short reference table to reduce inline prose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and information-dense with gitnexus-specific gotchas (false clean checks, wrong-worktree zeros, partial/truncated flags), but the "Bind the repository first" and "Risk Assessment" prose could be tightened in places. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable tool calls with complete arguments, CLI fallbacks (`node .gitnexus/run.cjs impact "X" --direction upstream --repo .`), and a worked end-to-end example with realistic output covering the common case. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 0–4 workflow plus a checklist, with explicit validation checkpoints (re-run on stale index, re-run on partial/truncated, stop on UNKNOWN, confirm the diffed checkout) and feedback loops for this destructive edit-gate operation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into distinct sections with a one-level resource reference (`gitnexus://repo/{name}/processes`) and no nested file chains; no bundle files exist, so structure is internal only, leaving minor room to externalize the detailed gotchas. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |