Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is lean, highly actionable, and well-structured with concrete git commands and explicit validation checkpoints; its only gap is the absence of error-recovery guidance when a verification step fails.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanation of what a worktree is, direct commands throughout, and every section earns its place; the scope-guarding sentence is useful boundary-setting rather than fluff. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands are given for every step (e.g. 'git worktree add -b feature-<name> .worktrees/feature-<name>', 'npm ci', 'uv sync', 'git -C .worktrees/feature-<name> branch --show-current'). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequences are clear with explicit validation checkpoints ('Confirm the target... before switching', 'verifying it is clean enough', 'it must equal feature-<name>'), but no error-recovery feedback loop is specified for when verification fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into logical sections (Phase Contract, Start, Resume, Dependency Bootstrap, Output) with no nested references and all content appropriately inline; no bundle files are present or needed. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |