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 body is admirably concise and free of padding, but its guidance is only partially actionable — it lists template categories yet omits an example, exact format, and the disclaimer text. Workflow clarity is limited by the absence of any in-body validation or approval checkpoint.
Suggestions
Add a short example of the expected markdown output so the guidance is copy-paste ready rather than abstract.
Specify the exact 'review disclaimer' text to include so the actionability gap is closed.
Surface the human-approval-before-publish checkpoint as an explicit validation step inside the body, not only in the description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The two-sentence body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with markdown and templates; every token earns its place with no padding or over-explanation, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives some concrete guidance (the Features/Fixes/Breaking/Security category list) but leaves key details unspecified — no example output, no exact markdown format, and no text for the 'review disclaimer' — fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is implied (apply template, output markdown, include disclaimer) but the body has no explicit validation checkpoint — the human-approval gate lives only in the description — matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is short, unbloated, and needs no external references (none exist), giving good structure overall; it stays at 4 rather than 5 because there is no section organization or headers, only two unheaded lines. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |