Content
67%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 largely actionable with concrete MCP integration steps and a clear output template. Its main weakness is verbosity from redundant overview/goal sections and a non-executable Usage Example.
Suggestions
Merge the Overview and The Goal sections, which both repeat the "source of truth for prompting Stitch" sentence, to remove redundancy.
Replace the narrative Usage Example ("Use the Stitch MCP Server to get...") with the actual concrete MCP calls used elsewhere, or remove it since the Retrieval section already covers this.
Add an explicit validation/verification checkpoint after file generation (e.g., confirm every color has a hex code and functional role before finalizing DESIGN.md).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body delivers actionable retrieval and output guidance but is padded by redundant sections (Overview and The Goal repeat the same "source of truth" sentence) and a vague narrative Usage Example that could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete MCP tool calls with parameters (list_tools, [prefix]:list_projects with filter, get_screen) and a precise DESIGN.md output template give mostly executable guidance, with only the non-executable Usage Example as a gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Retrieval is a clearly sequenced 1–6 flow with conditional branching (if Project/Screen ID not provided) and the analysis steps are numbered; the only gap is the absence of an explicit verify step on the generated file. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so all content is inline, but it is well-sectioned with clear headers and no nested references; minor gaps are the Tips/Pitfalls/Best-Practice sections that could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |