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 well-structured overview: the body is a lean index of high-value gotchas plus a situation-based routing table to two real, one-level-deep reference files, which is exemplary progressive disclosure and token efficiency. Its main gap is that the body itself contains no sequenced workflow or validation checkpoints — all step-by-step procedures and their verification steps are deferred to the reference documents.
Suggestions
Add a minimal inline decision sequence for the most common flow (e.g., 'identify sender → if unknown, silently ignore; if admin, execute') so the body carries a basic workflow without forcing a reference read for routine cases.
Include one compact validation checkpoint in the body for channel-configuration changes (e.g., 'after --action confirm, run --action show to verify') to close the workflow-clarity gap.
Mention scripts/manage-primary-channel.sh in the operation reference table (it is currently only discoverable via references/primary-channel.md) so the script entry point is visible at the overview level.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean and every token earns its place: each Gotcha is a non-obvious domain constraint ('Primary channel cannot be set to "matrix"', 'to field ... maps to target parameter', 'Unknown senders ... must be silently ignored') that Claude could not infer. Not 4 because there is no over-explanation or padding to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete anchors appear throughout ('--action reset', 'message' tool's channel/target parameters, 'primary-channel.json', named reference files), and the routing table tells exactly what to read per situation. Not 5 because nothing in the body alone is copy-paste executable — full command syntax is deferred to the reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The body is a router: the situation→doc table gives coherent decision guidance, but no multi-step sequence or validation checkpoint appears in the body itself — steps live in the reference files. It is above 2 because the routing is unambiguous and complete, but below 4 because the body contains no explicit checkpoints or feedback loops for operations like channel confirmation. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Both referenced paths (references/identity-and-contacts.md, references/primary-channel.md) exist in the bundle, are exactly one level deep, and are surfaced through a well-signaled situation table prefaced by 'Read the relevant doc before executing. Do not load all of them.' Not 4 because there are no organization gaps — navigation is clean and content is appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |