Content
88%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 tightly organized, highly actionable workflow with executable commands, code examples, and an explicit verify-and-retry loop; its only mild gaps are a few trimmable explanatory phrases and the absence of any external reference structure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no padding about what a memory leak or GC root is), with most prose tied to actionable pointers; a few mildly explanatory phrases like 'usually at the bottom of the trace, marked with Leaking: YES' could be trimmed, keeping it just below the fully-lean anchor at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable — concrete commands ('autoninja -C out/Debug chrome_public_test_apk', the run_chrome_public_test_apk invocation, the Cq-Include-Trybots footer), specific APIs (removeObserver, @Nullable, @SuppressWarnings("NullAway")), and copy-paste Before/After code covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step workflow (Confirm → Analyze → Identify Break Point → Apply Fix → Verify) is clearly sequenced with an explicit Verify validation checkpoint (rebuild, re-run the leak test, confirm LeakCanary no longer reports) and an error-recovery feedback loop, matching the explicit-validation anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clear sections (Workflow, Best Practices & Gotchas, Examples) with no nested or buried references and no monolithic wall of text; with no bundle files present the structure is good, but it is above the simple-skill line so it stops short of the well-signaled one-level-deep reference ideal at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |