Content
75%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 a well-structured, concrete guide: it provides executable grader commands, copy-paste eval templates, a clear define-implement-evaluate-report workflow, and framework-specific metrics. Its main weaknesses are minor padding, a few placeholders that aren't fully executable, and no reference-file split despite the length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly templates, code blocks, and framework-specific metric definitions (pass@k/pass^k) rather than explanations of concepts Claude already knows; minor padding exists in the repeated report templates and the philosophy section. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance: real grader commands (grep -q, npm test, npm run build), copy-paste markdown eval templates, and /eval commands. Minor gaps are the placeholder '[各能力評価を実行し、PASS/FAILを記録]' and /eval slash-commands with no backing implementation. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-phase sequence (定義 → 実装 → 評価 → レポート) with per-eval PASS/FAIL recording and report formats; validation checkpoints exist (running regression evals after implementation) but explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops are only implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single body is well-organized with clear section headers; however, at ~220 lines some content (the worked auth example, evaluator type details) could be split into reference files for easier navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |