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 lean, actionable, and well-structured with executable examples and clear multi-step workflows, with only minor redundancy and a couple of missing validation re-run checkpoints.
Suggestions
Consolidate the duplicated file paths: cite each reference once, either inline or in the 'Repo Assets' list, rather than repeating them in both places.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the validate mode (e.g. 'After rewriting, re-run the test file and confirm it passes') to close the feedback loop.
Replace the `<path-to-lcov-or-json>` placeholder in the coverage example with a concrete sample path (the assets sample exists) to make it fully copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and avoids over-explaining TDD concepts, but the 'Repo Assets (verified paths)' section duplicates paths already cited inline in each mode, which could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready Python examples for generate and coverage modes plus a concrete validate checklist; the coverage example still requires substituting a placeholder path. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Generate and coverage modes are clearly sequenced with an explicit red-checkpoint ('confirm they FAIL') and a feedback loop ('return to /tdd generate'); validate mode lacks an explicit re-run-after-fix checkpoint, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-signaled one-level-deep references to external reference files and scripts, organized in a dedicated assets section; minor organization gap from the inline/section path duplication. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |