Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-organized process guide that assumes Claude's competence and structures content cleanly. It loses points on actionability and workflow clarity because the build steps lack executable detail and the validation checkpoint is implicit rather than a concrete feedback loop.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, executable snippet per build layer (e.g. a minimal config-schema stub or a registry-registration code fragment) so guidance is copy-paste ready rather than directional.
Turn step 4 into an explicit validation loop, e.g. "run the host repo's connector test suite; if it fails, diff against an existing connector and re-run" with a pass-gate before finishing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean bullet lists and short sections with no explaining of concepts Claude already knows; the directory-layout blocks are illustrative rather than padded, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps specify what to inspect and which layers to build ("at least 2 existing connectors", six named slices, reference shapes) but provide no executable code or commands, leaving the how-to-build detail implicit. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence with a Quality Checklist exists, but the validate step is abstract ("should look obvious in the codebase") with no explicit verify-then-fix feedback loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Self-contained body organized into well-signaled sections (When to Use, Guardrails, Workflow, Reference Shapes, Quality Checklist) with no nested references or monolithic wall of text. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |