Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-organized with concrete grader commands and integration patterns, but workflow validation checkpoints are implicit and several steps use placeholder shells. Progressive disclosure is clean given the single-file, no-bundle structure.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Evaluate step (e.g., 'If any eval FAILs, fix the code and re-run before reporting') to create a feedback loop.
Replace placeholder shells ('[Write code]', '[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]') with concrete, runnable instructions or marked-optional examples.
Consolidate the Example section so it illustrates rather than re-lists the Eval Workflow phases, removing the redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly terse and well-structured, but the Example section restates the Eval Workflow's Define/Implement/Evaluate/Report structure, adding redundancy that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides many concrete, real commands (grep/npm graders, /eval subcommands, .claude/evals layout) but key workflow steps remain placeholder shells like '[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]' and '[Write code]'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Define→Implement→Evaluate→Report sequence is clearly numbered, but the Evaluate step lacks a validate→fix→retry feedback loop, which caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into clearly headed sections with no nested or multi-level file references; no bundle files exist, and the single-file structure is appropriately navigable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |