Content
73%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 well-structured, actionable fact-checking workflow with strong sequencing and explicit validation. Its main weakness is conciseness: several sections explain concepts or restate obvious distinctions that Claude already knows.
Suggestions
Trim the 'Skip subjective content' list and good/poor query examples, which restate distinctions Claude can infer, to reduce token cost.
Condense the full correction-report markdown template to a compact schema plus one short example rather than two fully worked issues.
Move the lengthy Examples section (three worked processes) into a separate references file and link to it, keeping the core workflow lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with a clear workflow, but includes some content Claude already knows (e.g., categorizing 'opinions' vs 'tutorial instructions', and lengthy good/poor query lists) that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete templates (comparison table, correction report), executable Edit-tool usage, and specific query examples, with only minor gaps where guidance stays slightly abstract. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 5-step workflow with an explicit validation checkpoint (user approval before edits) and a post-edit verification step; the destructive/batch cap does not apply because validation is present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with one-level references; no bundle files exist, and most content is appropriately inline, though the full report template and examples could optionally be split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |