Content
82%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 well-structured with concrete commands and a worked example, assuming Claude's competence throughout; the only real costs are repeated command strings across sections and a validation loop not explicitly wired into the workflow steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and tool-specific with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the main trimmable cost is the full CLI fallback string being restated across Workflow, Checklist, Tools, and Example sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance throughout: concrete MCP calls with parameters, copy-paste CLI fallback commands, real READ URIs, and a worked end-to-end example covering the common case. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered workflow is reinforced by a checklist and a stale-index recovery note, but the step sequence itself lacks an explicit validate-and-retry checkpoint (the UNKNOWN "confirm with text search" guidance lives in Risk Assessment prose, not the workflow steps). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the content is well-organized into clearly headed sections (When to Use, Workflow, Checklist, Understanding Output, Risk Assessment, Tools, Example) with no content that clearly belongs in a separate file; scored on structure alone since there are no references to verify. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |