Content
88%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 strong, actionable investigation playbook with concrete commands, a worked example, and explicit validation via confidence levels. Its only weaknesses are mild redundancy and the absence of progressive disclosure into reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body assumes Claude knows Django and stays focused on the investigation method ("Do NOT scan for predefined vulnerable patterns", concrete grep commands, code snippets), with only minor trimmable redundancy such as the closing "Investigation Checklist" re-stating the five phases. It is not a 5 because that final checklist and a few repeated gap-indicator lists could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste grep commands (e.g. `grep -rn "permission_classes\|@login_required"`), a worked end-to-end trace of GET /api/documents/{pk}/, and concrete good-vs-bad fix code that raises PermissionDenied. Specific examples cover the common Django/DRF IDOR cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 1–5 are explicitly sequenced with a hard checkpoint ("Do not proceed until you understand the authorization model") and a confidence-level table (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) that gates what gets reported — a validation/feedback loop for the review's output. This is not a destructive/batch skill, so the workflow-clarity cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the ~340-line body is well organized into clearly headed phases. It is not a 5 because the "Common Django Authorization Patterns" section and the report-format template are candidates for a one-level-deep reference file that would keep the overview leaner. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |