Content
65%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.
A lean, well-organized instruction body whose safety rules and output contracts are concrete, but whose core scanning workflow is under-specified: only one of three scan sources has an executable command and nothing verifies the draft's completeness. The structure and discipline are strong; the executable detail is thin.
Suggestions
Add executable commands for the remaining scan sources, e.g. `gh pr list --state merged --base main --json title,labels,milestone --search "merged:>$(git describe --tags --abbrev=0)"`, so all three sources are actionable.
Number the workflow steps (scan → extract → categorize → write draft → update state file) and add a verification step such as comparing the draft's entry count against `git rev-list --count <last-tag>..HEAD`.
Specify how to resolve `<last-tag>` (e.g., `git describe --tags --abbrev=0`) and how each category maps from PR labels or commit-message conventions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is tight bullet-lists with no concept explanations and dense operational rules (including the safety block). Minor trimmable redundancy: the opening line restates the frontmatter description, and "L1: draft only — no PRs, no tags" overlaps "Never publish or tag without explicit human approval". Efficient but not perfectly lean, so 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | One executable command (`git log --merges --oneline <last-tag>..HEAD`) and named output files (RELEASE_NOTES_DRAFT.md, changelog-drafter-state.md) give some concrete guidance, but there is no command for gathering "PR labels and milestones" (e.g., a gh pr invocation), no way to determine `<last-tag>`, and no method for the extract/categorize steps. Incomplete concrete guidance matches the 3 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The scan → categorize → write-draft sequence is implicit in the section order but never numbered as steps, and there are no validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying the draft covers every merge in the window). This batch scan lacks any verification step, capping workflow clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At ~42 lines with well-organized headers and no need for external reference files (none exist in the bundle), this is the simple-skill case: well-organized sections alone warrant a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |