Content
81%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, actionable workflow with clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, and a conflict-resolution feedback loop. The main gaps are the lack of a worked input→output example and orphaned bundle files that the body never points to.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example (source abstract -> adapted ASCO abstract with word count) to make the guidance copy-paste concrete.
Link the existing bundle files from the body (e.g., a 'References' section pointing to references/audit-reference.md and scripts/main.py) so they are discoverable.
Trim the parenthetical tooling hint in Step 4 ('e.g., Python len() or Word character count with spaces enabled') since Claude already knows how to count characters.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Efficient and assumes Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, but has minor over-explanation that could be trimmed (e.g., the parenthetical on Python len()/Word character-count tooling in Step 4). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance — target proportions (15/25/40/20%), ordered paragraph structure, explicit output format ('Word count: X / [limit]'), and a preservation/cut priority list — but no worked input→output example of a fully adapted abstract, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear five-step sequence with explicit validation (Step 4 count-and-verify), a word-limit conflict-resolution feedback loop, and a Step 5 final-check checklist, matching the anchor for sequenced processes with checkpoints and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized body with clear sections and a useful inline conference table, but bundle files exist (references/audit-reference.md, scripts/main.py) that are never linked or signaled from the body, a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |