Content
86%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 a lean, well-structured overview with executable commands and a clear sequenced workflow including a re-run feedback loop. It scores top marks on conciseness and progressive disclosure, with only minor actionability and validation-gating gaps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient—short imperative workflow steps, a compact command block, and terse guardrails—assuming Claude's competence with no padded explanations, matching 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable commands (git fetch/diff/status, gh pr checks) and concrete workflow steps, but several steps like 'Fix critical issues' and 'Commit selective files with a concise message' stay high-level, leaving minor gaps versus copy-paste-ready guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with a feedback checkpoint ('Fix critical issues before finalizing and re-run affected tests') and a readiness check via gh pr checks, but commit/push gating could be more explicit, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and clean section organization (Trigger, Workflow, Suggested Checks, Guardrails, Output), which the rubric's simple-skill guidance scores at 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |