Content
57%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 content-rich with executable SQL and Streamlit examples, but it is verbose, monolithic, and lacks a concrete multi-step workflow with validation. Its one progressive-disclosure reference is broken since no bundle files exist.
Suggestions
Move the SQL and Streamlit implementation code into a real referenced file (e.g. references/implementation-playbook.md) instead of the dangling 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' path.
Replace the generic Instructions filler with a concrete sequenced workflow (define metrics -> lay out hierarchy -> implement -> validate against stakeholder goals) with explicit checkpoints.
Trim the large ASCII dashboard mockups and per-department KPI catalogs, which restate knowledge Claude already has.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly concrete but padded with generic filler instructions ('Clarify goals...', 'Apply relevant best practices'), large decorative ASCII dashboard mockups, and exhaustive per-department KPI catalogs that Claude largely already knows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable SQL for MRR/cohort/CAC calculations and a complete Streamlit Python example with only minor gaps such as hardcoded sample data and unspecified data sources. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Instructions section offers a loose generic sequence (clarify, apply, validate) with no concrete validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the dashboard design process. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers provide structure, but the bulk of detail (SQL, Streamlit code, KPI catalogs) is inlined rather than split into reference files, and the sole reference 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' points to a non-existent file. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |