Content
85%Reviews 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-structured, highly actionable workflow with clear sequencing and explicit validation/confirmation checkpoints around a destructive archive operation. Its only real weakness is the redundant Guardrails section that restates the steps.
Suggestions
Trim the Guardrails section to only non-obvious constraints not already covered by the steps (e.g., preserve .openspec.yaml on move), removing restated items like prompt-for-selection and use-artifact-graph to improve conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but the Guardrails section largely restates earlier steps (prompt-for-selection, artifact-graph checking, don't-block-on-warnings, sync approach), which is redundant padding that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete executable commands (openspec list/status --json, mkdir -p, mv), specific tool invocations with subagent_type and prompt, and a copy-paste-ready output template, matching the anchor-3 fully-executable example. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step sequence is explicit with validation checkpoints (artifact/task completion checks), AskUserQuestion confirmation gates, and target-exists error handling before the destructive move, satisfying the anchor-3 criteria including feedback for error recovery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into Input, Steps, Output On Success, and Guardrails sections with easy navigation and no nested references; the self-contained workflow is appropriately kept inline rather than split. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |