Content
85%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-sequenced, highly actionable customization workflow with strong validation checkpoints and concrete file/command guidance. Main weakness is monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure to separate reference files despite containing sizable lookup tables.
Suggestions
Move the 'axes of variation' and 'architecture map' tables into a reference file (e.g. references/architecture.md) and link to them from the body to improve progressive disclosure.
Tighten the Round 1/Round 2 interview prose — the option enumerations can be condensed without losing the adaptive prompting intent.
Consider a brief inline pointer to a worked example of one completed domain port, kept in references/, so the body stays a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Information-dense and assumes Claude's intelligence (no basic ASAN/PDF-style primers), but the interview rounds and axes-of-variation prose run long and could be tightened in places. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete: specific file paths to read and edit, an architecture-map table marking each file's disposition, and copy-paste-ready validation commands (bin/vp-sandboxed run ..., cat results/.../judge_log.jsonl, ./scripts/setup_sandbox.sh). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear STEP 1–5 sequence with explicit checkpoints: read before asking, present plan and "Wait for explicit approval", then a thorough validate stage with six confirmation checks and a re-confirm feedback loop if the plan is adjusted. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned single file, but it is monolithic (~130 lines) with sizable inline reference material (axes-of-variation list and the architecture-map table) that could live in separate reference files; no bundle files exist to offload detail. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |