Content
80%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.
A concise, well-organized body with mostly executable guidance and a sensible no-bundle structure. The main weaknesses are a non-executable construct in Example 1 (invalid one-line variable block) and the lack of a sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for module creation or review.
Suggestions
Fix Example 1's variable declarations to use valid multi-line HCL blocks (e.g., `variable "cidr" {\n type = string\n default = "10.0.0.0/16"\n}`) so the module example passes `terraform validate` as-is.
Turn the instruction list into a sequenced workflow with checkpoints — e.g., scaffold files → pin versions → write resources → run `terraform fmt` and `terraform validate` → review `terraform plan` output — so module creation has an explicit order and validation gates.
Add a validation/feedback step for code review use cases (e.g., inspect `terraform plan` for destructive changes before approving), since the review flow currently has no explicit checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Terraform competence — no padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every section (use/don't-use, instructions, examples, best practices, troubleshooting) earns its place, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable — concrete commands ("terraform fmt", "terraform validate", "terraform force-unlock <LOCK_ID>") and two HCL examples — but Example 1's one-line `variable "cidr" { type = string, default = "10.0.0.0/16" }` is invalid HCL syntax (commas are not valid separators in blocks), so it is not fully copy-paste ready; anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six numbered instructions are unordered design principles rather than a sequenced workflow; one validation checkpoint exists ("Apply terraform fmt and terraform validate before commits") and Troubleshooting gives one recovery path, but there is no sequence or checkpoints for module creation or code review — anchor 3 rather than 4, which requires a clear sequence with most checkpoints present. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed: the ~72-line body is appropriately inline with well-organized sections and clear headers, matching the simple-skill guideline that well-organized sections with no external-reference needs score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |