Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
An action-dense, concise workflow with strong concrete guidance and clean sectioning. The main gap is the execution step: a destructive batch operation (selling/rebuying securities) that lacks an explicit validation/confirmation feedback loop, capping workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation gate before Step 5 execution (e.g., confirm the wash-sale check passed and the client/advisor approved the harvest amount) with a 'do not proceed until confirmed' checkpoint.
Add a verify-after-execution step — re-check realized loss figures and confirm wash-sale windows are recorded — so the workflow has a fix-and-retry feedback loop rather than ending at execution.
Trim the empty scaffold rows in the Step 1, Step 4, and Step 5 tables to reduce token overhead while keeping the column structure as a template.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean instruction set that assumes Claude's domain competence; tables and prioritization rules carry the content without explaining what tax-loss harvesting is or how tax law works. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: explicit prioritization rules, named replacement-security pairs with rationale, 30-day wash-sale lookback/forward rules, DRIP checks, and a tax-savings formula. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear seven-step sequence with a wash-sale validation checkpoint before execution, but the batch/destructive trade execution (Step 5) lacks an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop or a confirm-before-executing gate. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single, self-contained file with well-organized, clearly headed sections and no need for external references; content is appropriately inline for this scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |