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 body is a well-structured, lean orchestration playbook with concrete sub-skill invocations, exact file-path contracts, and per-step templates, supported by explicit gating and a quality-audit checkpoint; the main gaps are the absence of runnable validation commands and unspecified FAIL-recovery feedback loops.
Suggestions
Add an explicit fix-and-retry loop for FAIL/PARTIAL statuses (e.g., 'If Step 2 status is PARTIAL/FAIL, re-invoke stat-theory-analyzer with the listed Blocking Ambiguities before proceeding').
Consider moving the per-step progress-file templates into a references/ file (e.g., PROGRESS_TEMPLATES.md) referenced from the Workflow section to reduce duplication with the 'Read:' field lists.
Make the Step 0 gate executable by specifying a concrete check (e.g., 'grep for `Target / Estimand:` and `Assumptions:` non-empty before proceeding') rather than only a prose instruction.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of what statistics or experiments are), using tight code blocks for paths and bullet lists of fields to read; minor trimming is possible because the Workflow 'Read:' lists and the Progress File Specification templates partially duplicate each other. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and specific — exact sub-skills to invoke, exact progress file paths to wait for, exact fields to read, and full markdown templates per step — but it is instruction-only with no executable commands, and validation relies on reading PASS/FAIL status fields rather than runnable checks, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit gating ('Do not proceed if the target or assumptions are undefined'), PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL status checkpoints, and a final Step 6 quality-audit checklist; minor gaps remain because explicit fix-and-retry feedback loops on FAIL are not spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is clean with well-labeled sections (Overview, Full Pipeline, Workflow, Progress File Specification, Key Conventions) and no nested references; the ~125 lines of progress-file templates are inlined but legitimately define the inter-skill contract, so only minor organization gaps remain. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |