Content
75%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 well-structured, actionable audit workflow with real bundle references and clear sequencing, scoring strongly across all dimensions with only minor redundancy and slight overlap between inline summaries and referenced spec files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is domain-rich and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the Common Issues Checklist re-treads the Phase 1.5 tier logic and the Phase 1 field lists overlap with the platform-rules section, leaving minor redundancy that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and specific (exact char limits, URL patterns, thresholds like crash >1.09%, keyword-field formatting, weighted scoring), but the core scoring criteria and report template are delegated to reference files rather than shown inline, leaving a small gap in the body itself. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 1 through 4 give a clear sequence with checkpoints for incomplete WebFetch data and missing-browser fallbacks, plus a checklist for complex findings; the only gap is an explicit 'verify scores before reporting' step, but the operation is non-destructive so the destructive-cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All five referenced files (scoring-criteria, apple-specs, google-play-specs, benchmarks, report-template) exist and are signaled with one-line summaries one level deep, but the inline 'Key Facts' sections duplicate content also covered by the referenced spec files, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |