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.
The body is a well-sequenced, executable workflow with strong validation checkpoints for a destructive archive operation. Its main weakness is the redundant Guardrails section that re-explains what the steps already specify.
Suggestions
Remove or collapse the Guardrails section entries that merely restate steps 1–4 (selection prompting, openspec status usage, don't-block-on-warnings, sync approach, summary display), keeping only net-new guardrails.
Tighten step 4's inline Task-tool prompt template so the delta-spec summary handoff is described more compactly.
Consider folding the Output On Success template into step 6 to avoid a separate block that repeats the summary fields.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The steps are mostly efficient, but the closing Guardrails section largely restates rules already embedded in steps 1–4 (prompt for selection, use openspec status, don't block on warnings, show summary, sync approach), adding redundant tokens. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands (`openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change --json`, `mkdir -p`, `mv`) plus concrete tool invocations (AskUserQuestion, Task subagent) covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints (artifact status, task status, delta-spec sync assessment, target-collision check) and user-confirmation gates before proceeding on the destructive move. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Input/Steps/Output/Guardrails sections with no nested file references and no bundle files to navigate; the only gap is the redundant Guardrails section that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |