Content
57%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 actionable and well-structured with concrete tool sequences and parameter detail, but it is monolithic — pitfalls are duplicated, no external references split out deeper material, and destructive operations lack explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Move the detailed CQL field/operator reference and the consolidated pitfall catalog into a separate reference file and link to it from the body to reduce duplication and apply progressive disclosure.
Add an explicit validation/confirmation step before destructive operations (e.g., confirm page ID via search before DELETE_PAGE, verify connection is ACTIVE before create/update).
Dedupe the inline pitfalls that are already covered in the "Known Pitfalls" section to tighten the token budget.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Content is dense and assumes Claude's competence, but pitfalls are duplicated both inline within each workflow and again in a consolidated "Known Pitfalls" section, and the Quick Reference table repeats parameters already detailed above. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete tool sequences, exact field paths (e.g., body.storage.value, version.number), CQL query examples, and numeric limits — mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps (no full request payloads). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Numbered tool sequences with prerequisite/optional markers are clear, but destructive and batch operations (e.g., DELETE_PAGE) lack validation or feedback-loop checkpoints, which caps workflow clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized, but with no bundle files the ~200-line body is entirely inline; detailed CQL reference and the full pitfall catalog are content that could live in separate reference files but does not. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |