Content
68%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 body is an admirably concise, well-sequenced overview of the build workflow, but it stays at a high-level outline: no executable guidance per step and no validation feedback loop for the packaging step. Adding concrete per-step instructions or reference files would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable guidance for each numbered step — e.g. how mode classification is decided, what the interview/research gate requires, and the exact commands or templates for runtime adapter generation.
Expand step 5 (Package verification) into an explicit validate → fix → retry feedback loop so failures are handled rather than just named.
Move detailed per-mode and per-adapter instructions into one-level-deep reference files (e.g. MODES.md, ADAPTERS.md) and link them from the overview to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (header, alias note, numbered steps) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It lists concrete artifacts (mode names, the four runtime adapters Codex/Claude/Gemini/Antigravity) but gives no executable commands or specifics for how to classify modes, run the interview gate, or author a routing card and soul. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced and include a "Package verification" step, but the verification step has no feedback loop (validate → fix → retry), which the rubric caps at 3 for build/package operations. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview with a clear header and numbered list, but the multi-mode complexity (three modes, four adapter generators) arguably warrants one-level-deep reference files that are not provided. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |