Content
62%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 content is exceptionally lean and well-structured with a clean one-level reference to an existing template. Its weakness is actionability — the workflow relies on abstract direction rather than concrete, executable steps or validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable steps to the Workflow (e.g., how to map acceptance criteria to tasks, or specific fields to extract from the Jira/Confluence inputs) rather than only '確認' and '策定'.
Insert a validation checkpoint before presenting the plan — e.g., verify every acceptance criterion is covered by a task and that dependencies have no unresolved blockers.
Reference the template's section anchors directly from the Workflow steps so Claude knows which template section to fill at each stage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient with no concept re-explanation or padding; every line directs behavior and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is high-level ('計画を策定', 'タスク分割は3軸で整理') with no concrete commands, code, or field-level specifics; the only executable pointer is the template reference, leaving the actual mechanics to inference. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four sequenced steps are listed and step 4 acts as a human review checkpoint, but there are no validation/verification gates for the planning output itself (e.g., completeness check against acceptance criteria), capping clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview body with a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference to references/planning-template.md, which exists and holds the detailed structure; navigation is easy and appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |