Content
78%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 concise, well-structured overview that delegates detail to a one-level reference and sequences its steps clearly. Its main weakness is actionability: the instructions name deliverables but not the specific steps to produce them.
Suggestions
Tighten the Instructions steps with concrete 'how' detail, e.g. specify what columns a subdomain classification table needs or how to elicit canonical terms from stakeholders.
Add a brief validation checkpoint, such as 'Review the bounded context catalog for overlap before writing ADRs', to make the workflow's quality gate explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~45 lines), uses short section headers and bullet steps, and assumes Claude's knowledge of DDD without over-explaining concepts, so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps like 'Extract domain capabilities and classify subdomains' and 'Establish a ubiquitous language glossary and anti-terms' name concrete deliverables but stay high-level, missing the specific execution detail needed to act without the reference file. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four numbered steps give a clear extract → define contexts → glossary → ADRs sequence; because this is design work rather than destructive/batch operations, the absence of explicit validation checkpoints is only a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ('If detailed templates are needed, open references/strategic-design-template.md', a real file), and detail is appropriately split out for easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |