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 well-sequenced, concrete multi-agent workflow with strong phase structure and explicit prompts, scoring well on actionability and workflow clarity. Its weaknesses are wasted tokens (meta-commentary and boilerplate sections), a dangling reference to a nonexistent playbook file, and absent error-recovery loops.
Suggestions
Remove the '[Extended thinking: ...]' block and the generic 'Instructions' / use / do-not-use boilerplate; replace with a short note on required inputs and how to pass the target branch.
Fix the broken reference: either create `references/implementation-playbook.md` with the detailed prompt examples or delete the pointer; also correct the path ('resources/' vs the conventional 'references/').
Add explicit feedback loops, e.g., 'If Phase 1 reports critical/high issues, fix them and re-run review before proceeding' and 'If any tests fail in Phase 2, stop and fix before commit generation'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The phase prompts are mostly tight, but the '[Extended thinking: ...]' meta-commentary block, the generic 'Instructions' bullets ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs'), and the boilerplate use/do-not-use sections add tokens without actionable guidance. More than minor over-explanation, so not 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Each step supplies a copy-paste-ready Task tool invocation with an explicit subagent_type and structured output format, plus a concrete flag list. Not 5 because prompts contain '[insert file list]'-style placeholders that must be assembled, and no actual git commands are given beyond `git revert <commit-hash>`. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five clearly sequenced phases with numbered sub-steps, explicit 'Context from previous' hand-offs, expected outputs, a pre-push validation step, and a success-criteria checklist. Not 5 because there are no feedback loops for error recovery (e.g., what to do when tests fail or review finds critical issues is never stated). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The section structure is reasonable, but the only external reference — 'open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`' — points to a file that does not exist in the bundle (no references/ or resources/ directory), so navigation dead-ends. Not 4 because the single reference is broken and uses a non-standard path. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |