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 highly actionable and well-structured with clear workflows and one-level-deep references, all pointing to real bundle files. Its main weakness is verbosity from duplicated safe_query and MCP-tool content across sections.
Suggestions
Consolidate the safe_query.build() guidance so it lives once (Workflow 4a) and the Security Considerations section links to it rather than restating the validator chain and anti-patterns.
Replace the inline MCP tool-surface enumeration with a pointer to mcp-tools.md/documentation-tools.md to avoid repeating reference content in the overview.
Trim the five 'Rubric-Critical Scenarios' to the three highest-value cases and move the rest into input-validation.md to reduce body length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but padded with repetition — the safe_query guidance appears in both Workflow 4a and Security Considerations, and the MCP tool surface enumeration repeats reference-file content — so it does not fully earn the lean score-3 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands and complete code — psql-connect.sh invocations, copy-paste safe_query.build() examples with required imports, and concrete JSON payloads — matching the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows 0–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (dependency checks, per-step confirmation on destructive Table Recreation, four-phase query-plan diagnosis with feedback loops), matching the score-3 anchor for risky database operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; every reference carries an explicit 'When'/'Contains' framing and the referenced files (database-tools.md, input-validation.md, language.md, etc.) are real bundle files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |