Content
92%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.
An exemplary dense, repo-specific workflow: each step names exact commands, files, and diff expectations, with validation gates before destructive actions and recovery guidance for generator stops. The only gap is that the baseline-harness and recorder steps rely on copying named test files rather than giving runnable invocations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line carries repo-specific, non-obvious detail (e.g. 'alertUniqueIds: {} and {"value": []} parse alike but are different requests') and no space is spent explaining concepts Claude already knows — fully matching the 'lean and efficient, every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands with flags ('tfgen generate --resource <Name> --out <dir>', 'tfgen check --overrides'), files to copy, and test names make most steps executable, but steps 1-2 ('drive the provider through the plugin protocol', 'record real answers with a recorder') describe mechanics without exact invocations — minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 7-step recipe with explicit validation checkpoints ('The golden diff must show only wording of messages', 'The diff must be empty') and feedback loops for error recovery ('the generator stops, so ask for the annotation or probe a read and write a line'); the destructive delete-handwritten-code step is gated by the empty-diff check. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At 19 lines with no need for external references, the body is well organized into Trigger, numbered Recipe, and Why sections; per the rubric's simple-skill note this earns full marks, and no referenced bundle paths are dangling. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |