Content
61%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 well-structured and richly actionable with concrete tool sequences, parameters, and pitfalls, but it repeats pitfalls across sections and lacks explicit post-write verification loops for destructive SQL operations. Splitting the parameter reference and adding a validate step would raise the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step to destructive workflows: after INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE via RUN_SQL_QUERY, re-query (e.g. SELECT with read_only: true) to verify the change, and on error fix-and-retry — this uncaps workflow_clarity.
Remove the duplicate 'Known Pitfalls' section or collapse it into cross-references to the per-workflow Pitfalls to eliminate the redundancy dragging conciseness.
Include one fully worked example tool call with all arguments populated (e.g. a SELECT_FROM_TABLE with project_ref, table, filters, order, limit) to push actionability to 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with genuinely useful operational detail and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the standalone 'Known Pitfalls' section largely re-states pitfalls already given per workflow (20-letter ref format, array syntax, case-sensitive quoting, ERROR 42P01/42883), creating noticeable redundancy. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool slugs, exact parameter formats (e.g. '^[a-z]{20}$'), filter operator lists, and error codes give mostly executable guidance; the gap is the absence of any fully worked example call showing all arguments filled in. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are clearly sequenced with [Prerequisite]/[Required]/[Optional] tags and connection-status validation in setup, but the destructive SQL-write paths (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE via RUN_SQL_QUERY) lack an explicit verify-then-retry feedback loop, so workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the destructive-operations guideline. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well organized into Prerequisites, Setup, Core Workflows, Common Patterns, Known Pitfalls, and a Quick Reference table with no nested references; the main gap is that the detailed per-tool parameter reference could be split into a separate file to slim the overview. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |