Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
Highly actionable and well-sequenced content with strong progressive disclosure to verified reference files. The main weakness is mild redundancy of a few directives, which slightly dents token efficiency.
Suggestions
Consolidate the app-name naming constraints (stated in Generic Guidelines, Directory Naming, and the scaffolding section) into one canonical location and cross-reference it.
Merge the two AI/BI-vs-custom-app routing explanations (intro paragraph and the 'Is this even a Databricks App?' block) into a single disambiguation passage to reduce repetition.
Consider trimming repeated restatements of the --features/--set resource rules across the manifest and scaffolding sections into one definitive spec.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean operational guidance with no padded concept explanations, but several directives are restated multiple times (app-name constraints appear ~3x, the AI/BI-vs-custom-app routing is stated twice), so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags (databricks apps manifest/init, --features/--set, npm run typegen, databricks apps validate) and real worked examples rather than pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Uses an explicit "FOLLOW THIS ORDER" sequence, a REQUIRED Data Access Decision Gate before scaffolding, a phased reading table, and validation/feedback checkpoints (typegen -> validate -> fix). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview body points one level deep to real, verified reference files organized by phase in a navigation table, with no deeply nested references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |