Content
75%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, highly actionable guide with clearly sequenced workflows and verification steps, structured well for in-file navigation. Main improvements would be adding a filled-in example FDR and explicit validation checkpoints in the create/update flows.
Suggestions
Include one short filled-in example FDR (e.g. a real or sample feature) to ground the blank template and improve actionability.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the create/update workflows (e.g. "verify the slug is unique in INDEX.md before writing") to match the audit flow's rigor.
Collapse the redundant "no implementation details" guidance between "What an FDR Is NOT" and "Writing Style" into a single statement to tighten conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is well-organized and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of markdown, ADRs, or basic concepts), with only minor redundancy between the "What an FDR Is NOT" and "Writing Style" sections that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a copy-paste-ready FDR template, a concrete naming convention, TOC format, and numbered workflow steps; the only minor gap is the absence of a filled-in example FDR to anchor the blank template. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Creating, updating, retiring, and auditing workflows are clearly sequenced with a verification checklist and an audit feedback loop (verified/discrepancies/stale/missing), though the create/update flows lack explicit validation checkpoints. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-structured with clearly labeled sections and a single in-file template; no bundle files exist so there are no nested references, though the template/TOC could optionally be split into reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |