Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly actionable with a clear, well-validated workflow and a real referenced audit script, but it carries some redundant sections and keeps most material inline rather than progressively splitting it across files.
Suggestions
Consolidate Architecture Guidance, Performance Notes, Failure Modes, and Validation Checklist into the existing Workflow/Guardrails sections to remove redundancy and reduce tokens.
Move the detailed key-architecture and formatting guidance into a dedicated reference file (e.g., references/key-architecture.md) and link to it from the body to better leverage progressive disclosure.
Trim restated routing/RTL/formatting points that already appear in the workflow steps to keep each section's content unique.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and actionable, but several sections (Architecture Guidance, Performance Notes, Failure Modes, Validation Checklist) overlap content already covered in the Workflow and Guardrails, adding padding that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable commands (`python scripts/i18n_audit.py ...`, `rg -n --glob ...`) and copy-paste-ready patterns (`t('namespace.key')`, `t('key', { count })` + `_one/_other`), with specific library recommendations. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step Audit -> Fix -> Validate sequence is clearly ordered with explicit validation checkpoints ('Re-run the audit until missing/parity issues are zero', 'Validate JSON') and a re-run feedback loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single referenced bundle file (`scripts/i18n_audit.py`, verified present) is clearly signaled one level deep, but the body itself is a fairly monolithic inline document with limited content split across files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |