Content
85%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced analysis workflow with strong checklists and evidence/confidence validation. Its main weakness is the absence of progressive disclosure — everything lives in one large file with no reference split.
Suggestions
Move the report template (Step 10) and the severity-scoring rubric (Step 6.5) into separate reference files (e.g. REPORT_TEMPLATE.md, SEVERITY_RUBRIC.md) and link to them from the body.
Consider extracting the field-record checklists for Steps 2–6 into a single FIELDS.md reference to slim the main body.
Tighten the calibration examples in Step 4 and the threshold tables in Step 10, which restate guidance already implied by the bands.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient procedural guidance that assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining known concepts, with only minor instances (calibration examples, threshold tables) that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Each step provides concrete, specific guidance — explicit field lists, fixed taxonomies (root-cause codes, rework shapes), and a 0–100 severity rubric with component weights — making the instruction-only workflow fully actionable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0.5–11 are clearly sequenced with per-step checklists (fields to record) and explicit evidence/confidence validation plus "why stronger alternatives were rejected" reasoning; the read-only analysis context means the destructive/batch cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The ~430-line body is well-sectioned internally but is entirely monolithic with no bundle files and no one-level-deep references, so bulk content (report template, severity rubric, taxonomies) that could live in separate reference files is inlined. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |