Content
78%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 lean, well-sequenced authoring workflow with exact MCP/CLI commands, explicit validation-before-save and validation-before-run checkpoints, and a properly structured one-level-deep reference bundle. Its residual weaknesses are the absence of a complete example definition, no explicit fix-and-revalidate feedback loop, and slight duplication of the ID contract data already held in the reference file.
Suggestions
Add a minimal valid test definition example (matching the contracts file's required keys: test-id, name, target, steps) so "create the smallest valid definition" has a concrete model.
Add an explicit feedback loop after validation, e.g., "If validation fails, read the error, fix the definition, and re-validate before retrying any save or run."
Replace the "Required ID Contracts" section with a pointer to references/agent-qa-contracts.json (the ID prefixes are already derivable there), removing the duplication with the bundle file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no background explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but "Required ID Contracts" duplicates the ID contract data already in references/agent-qa-contracts.json, and "Do not hand-write IDs" repeats Workflow step 5. This matches anchor 4 (efficient with minor trimmable instances) rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Exact tool names and copy-paste commands are given ("agent-qa ids generate <test|suite|hook|run|observation>", "agent-qa ids validate <type> <id> --json", kind-specific validation tools), but no complete example definition is shown anywhere — "create the smallest valid definition" is instructed without an artifact, and the Example section is a dialogue rather than YAML. Matches anchor 4 (mostly executable, minor gaps) rather than anchor 5's coverage of common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered discover→config→ID→validate→author→enqueue sequence is present with validation checkpoints before saving and before running, plus explicit confirmation gates for destructive or state-changing operations. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., "if validation fails, fix the definition and re-validate") — anchor 4's "minor validation gaps" fits. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single reference, references/agent-qa-contracts.json, is one level deep, clearly signaled at the exact point of need (Workflow step 3), and verified to exist with the schema/ID bulk split out of the body. With a well-organized overview body and no buried or nested references, this matches anchor 5's clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |