Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced workflow with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops. The main gaps are conciseness (duplicated status tables across modes) and progressive disclosure (a monolithic single file with no external references).
Suggestions
De-duplicate the valid-status enumeration shared between Step 2 and Step 30 by defining it once and referencing it, or extract it to a reference file.
Introduce a references/ file (e.g. STATUS_REFERENCE.md) for the status taxonomy and legacy mappings to split the monolith and improve progressive disclosure.
Tighten the large Handlebars output blocks in Steps 4 and 20 by trimming decorative template scaffolding that does not change behavior.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly procedural and free of concept-explanation padding, but the valid-status enum is repeated in both Step 2 and Step 30 and the large Handlebars output templates add bulk that could be tightened or factored out. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides exact runnable commands (e.g. 'python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow'), concrete file paths, named YAML fields, enumerated status values, and copy-ready output templates. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are explicitly numbered with goals, include file-not-found and unrecognized-status checks, and embed a validate -> correct -> re-parse feedback loop, satisfying the rubric's checkpoint and recovery criteria. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and all content lives inline in a single ~300-line document with no external references signaled; the inline structure is well-sectioned but content that could be split out (full status tables, template blocks) is not. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |