Content
72%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 tight, well-structured overview that points cleanly to deeper artifacts. Its weaknesses are actionability and workflow clarity: most of the API surface is enumerated rather than shown in runnable examples, and there are no explicit validation checkpoints despite guardrail-style guidance.
Suggestions
Pair the long API Surface enumeration with a small runnable example for at least one non-trivial path (e.g. a no-key event-folding example) instead of only listing symbol names.
Add explicit validation/feedback steps where applicable (e.g. verify generated output against axir-capabilities.json, or re-check after editing), so the workflow has concrete checkpoints.
Tighten the single dense API Surface bullet into a few grouped lines or a short table so it stays scannable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and well-organized with no pedagogy about Go or LLMs; every section (Package Facts, Core Pattern, Guardrails) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides one concrete executable Go snippet and exact `axllm.*` symbol names, but the lengthy API Surface list names symbols (e.g. AxBalancer, UsageObserver) without runnable usage, leaving guidance partially incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | "When To Use" and "Guardrails" give ordered, sensible guidance, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops; checkpoints are only implied by guardrail bullets. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with one-level-deep pointers to API.md, axir-api.json, axir-capabilities.json, and examples/, with no nested references and well-labeled sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |