Content
50%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 well-structured and lean but stays at a generic process level: no executable techniques or code, weak validation with no feedback loop, and a referenced playbook file that does not exist.
Suggestions
Add a concrete validation/feedback loop after the fix step (e.g., 'Re-run the failing test; if it still fails, repeat isolation — do not declare fixed until the original repro passes').
Replace generic hints with specific executable techniques or minimal code (e.g., example debug-logging snippet, how to bisect recent changes with git).
Fix or remove the broken `resources/implementation-playbook.md` reference, pointing to a real bundled file under references/ or inlining the key examples.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean list-based content with no concept over-explanation, but generic instruction bullets ('Clarify goals, constraints...', 'Apply relevant best practices...') and the redundant Use/Do-not-use sections are filler Claude already knows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete numbered sequence and a deliverables checklist, but offers no executable code, specific commands, tools, or concrete techniques — only high-level hints like 'Add strategic debug logging'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'When invoked' steps are clearly sequenced, but validation is a single weak 'Verify solution works' with no validate->fix->retry feedback loop; since debugging modifies code (a destructive operation) this caps at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clean and the playbook reference is one level deep and clearly signaled, but `resources/implementation-playbook.md` does not exist, so navigation leads to a broken link. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |