Content
63%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 detailed, actionable, well-sequenced workflow with strong feedback loops, though it is verbose and monolithic with no progressive disclosure into reference files. Splitting the prompt templates and output template into bundle files would improve both conciseness and navigation.
Suggestions
Move the SubAgent prompt templates and the output template into reference files under references/ and link to them, reducing inline bulk.
Replace the large ASCII architecture diagram with a compact bulleted phase list to save tokens while preserving the sequence.
Consolidate the two SubAgent call examples into one canonical example with a short note on the worker-vs-general-purpose variant.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete YAML/MCP blocks and no padding with concepts Claude already knows, but the large ASCII architecture diagram and two near-duplicate SubAgent call examples could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-pasteable SubAgent prompts, concrete MCP tool calls (mcp__chrome-devtools__new_page, etc.), explicit output_schema and an output template — mostly executable with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight clearly sequenced phases with explicit decision thresholds (>=25 items / >=20 high-quality), a feedback loop (retry/skip/disable sources), and error handling; minor validation gaps keep it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned but monolithic: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files exist, and content that belongs in separate files (SubAgent prompt templates, output template, architecture) is all inlined in one ~350-line file. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |