Content
68%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 lean, actionable, and well-structured, but its batch workflow lacks an explicit verification checkpoint before output, capping workflow clarity at 3.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step before output, e.g. 'Before returning, confirm every entry in args.packages has a corresponding packageReviews entry.'
Show one concrete tool-call example (e.g. a sample get_npm_package_info or search_repo invocation) to lift actionability toward fully executable.
Consider extracting the impact-rating table or output schema into a reference file to improve progressive-disclosure structure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient — concrete tool list, a compact impact-rating table, and a copy-paste output schema with minimal over-explanation — but a few prose passages (e.g. the 'Ignore:' list) could be trimmed slightly, fitting the score-4 anchor above the score-3 midpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete tool names, specific file paths to check (package.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, src/, worker/, bin/), and a fully specified JSON output schema, but lacks literal example tool-call syntax, leaving minor gaps consistent with the score-4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step process is clearly sequenced, but this is a batch operation (every bumped package) with no explicit validation/verification checkpoint before producing output, so per the batch-operation cap workflow clarity is held at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single file with well-organized sections (Goal, Tools, Process, Output) and no bundle files present; content is appropriately placed with minor organization gaps, matching the score-4 anchor rather than the score-5 reference-split pattern. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |