Content
65%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 with executable code and a useful decision tree, but it is held back by mild verbosity, a missing validation feedback loop, and a Reference Files section pointing to a non-existent examples/ directory.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/retry checkpoint to the workflow (e.g., screenshot or assert expected state, and if it fails, adjust selectors and re-run).
Fix the broken examples/ reference — either create the listed example files (element_discovery.py, static_html_automation.py, console_logging.py) or remove the Reference Files section.
Tighten the 'DO NOT read the source' paragraph to a single sentence and correct the 'abslutely' typo.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete code and a decision tree, but the 'DO NOT read the source ...' paragraph restates the context-window-pollution idea twice and contains a typo ('abslutely'), so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready Playwright code and concrete with_server.py invocations with specific flags, matching the 'fully executable code/commands' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The decision tree and reconnaissance-then-action pattern give a clear sequence, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for testing operations, which caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well organized with a one-level-deep Reference Files section, but the referenced examples/ directory does not exist (only scripts/ is present), so the signaled references are partly broken. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |