Content
61%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 a clean, well-structured router/overview with efficient tables, but it delegates nearly all executable guidance to referenced files and lacks validation checkpoints in its workflow example.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/verification steps to the usage example workflow (e.g., confirm the scaffolded project builds before coordinating agents).
Include at least one concrete command or minimal code snippet in the body so it is actionable without the referenced files.
Ensure the referenced files (project-detection.md, tech-stack.md, templates/*) are actually bundled so the progressive-disclosure pointers resolve.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean table-based overview that assumes Claude's competence; only minor redundancy such as restating the selective-reading rule. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides routing structure and an illustrative process example, but the executable guidance lives entirely in referenced files with no commands or code in the body itself. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The usage example lists a clear 6-step sequence but validation checkpoints are absent, matching the anchor with sequence present but checkpoints missing. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-signaled one-level-deep references via a content map and template table give good navigation, though no bundle files are present to verify the referenced paths exist. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |