Content
65%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 otherwise excellent, information-dense audit procedure with per-mode source-file lists, concrete field-level guidance, and a clearly sequenced seven-step workflow. Its credibility is undercut by two dangling references — the missing report template and the nonexistent frameworks.md Section 12 — that leave Mode 3 weighting and the final report step unexecutable, plus no verification checkpoint before writing the report.
Suggestions
Create `references/audit-report-template.md` (referenced by Step 7) and add Section 12, the offer-category → framework weighting table, to `references/frameworks.md` — or remove/replace both references with the content inlined.
Add a final validation checkpoint before saving the report: re-confirm each CRITICAL/HIGH finding against the actual source file it cites (e.g., re-read the field or prompt before flagging it), mirroring the existing "read actual code, never assume" rule.
Collapse the 10-row framework table into one-line pointers to `references/frameworks.md` sections to remove the duplication and tighten token usage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and project-specific — audit lenses, per-mode source file lists, SDR question tables, and a blueprint checklist — with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming is possible: the 10-row framework table partially restates the opening of `references/frameworks.md` (author + summary) and could be reduced to one-line pointers. Not a 5 for that duplication; not a 3 because there are no padded or tutorial-style sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is largely executable: exact source paths (`backend/src/modules/brand/domain/`, `frontend/src/features/offer-studio/types/`), a named lookup (`OFFER_TYPE_TO_DETAILS_MAPPING` in `offer.py`), concrete field names (`brand.identity.voice_tone`, `offer.onboarding_action`), an example failure pattern, and a report destination with a filename convention. However, two referenced resources do not exist — `references/audit-report-template.md` (Step 7) and `frameworks.md` Section 12 (framework weighting table) — so those steps cannot be executed as written. This is more than the trivial gaps of a 5 but confined to two references, so it fits the "mostly executable with minor gaps" anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The seven-step audit process is clearly sequenced (determine mode → read state → analyze → translate → SDR readiness → blueprint → report) with a disambiguation checkpoint ("If intent is ambiguous, ask") and a "read actual code, never assume from memory" rule. But the sequence stalls at two points: Mode 3 directs to a nonexistent "Section 12" for its framework weighting, and Step 7 directs to a nonexistent report template — required inputs the workflow cannot reach, and there is no final re-verification of flagged findings against the source. This matches "steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit" better than the minor-gaps level 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure and signaling are good — the body is sectioned by mode and step, and references are called out with specific sections ("Section 11", "Section 12") — but scoring against the actual bundle reveals two broken references: `references/` contains only `frameworks.md` (which ends at Section 11, so the twice-referenced Section 12 does not exist), and `references/audit-report-template.md` is absent entirely. Navigation fails exactly where the reader needs the referenced detail, which is below the "minor organization gaps" of a 4, though well above the buried/monolithic structure of a 2. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |