Content
76%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 content is highly actionable thanks to a concrete template, conventions, and worked examples, and is well-structured with no unnecessary padding; its main weakness is the absence of an explicit workflow sequence with a validation checkpoint before writing issue files.
Suggestions
Add a short numbered workflow (e.g. parse input → fill template → resolve placeholders → write file under /issues/) with a verification step confirming placeholders are resolved and the file is saved.
Replace the generic 'When to Use' boilerplate with concrete trigger guidance aligned to the description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean—output template, crisp guidelines, and two worked examples with no padding of concepts Claude already knows—though the boilerplate 'When to Use' line ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview') is filler that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a copy-paste-ready output template, a concrete naming convention (YYYY-MM-DD-short-description.md), a target directory, a severity taxonomy, placeholder conventions, and two full input-to-output examples covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The output template implies a sequence but there is no explicit step list and no validation/verification checkpoint (e.g. confirm placeholders resolved or file written) for this file-creating operation, matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and clearly headed (Output Template, Output Location, Guidelines, Examples) with no nested references and no bundle files needed; minor gaps (the weak When-to-Use section and long inlined examples) keep it just below a clean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |