Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a well-structured, token-efficient API reference with good progressive disclosure, but it falls short on actionability (empty payload placeholders) and workflow clarity (no sequencing or validation for destructive operations).
Suggestions
Replace the `-d '{}'` placeholders in PUT/POST examples with representative real request bodies (e.g. a sample RTK config object and a TOML filter payload) so the commands are copy-paste ready.
Add a short workflow showing the typical sequence (GET current config -> modify -> PUT -> POST /test to preview -> verify), with a validation checkpoint before installing filters via POST /import.
Include a concrete example response for at least the GET config and POST /test endpoints so Claude knows what success looks like.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean endpoint catalog with minimal prose and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its tokens (the only minor redundancy is the Overview restating the description). | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete curl commands are provided per endpoint, but POST/PUT bodies are empty `-d '{}'` placeholders and real request/response schemas are deferred to the external OpenAPI spec, leaving key details missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Endpoints are organized by method and purpose, but there is no usage sequence (e.g. GET config -> modify -> PUT -> test) and the destructive PUT/import operations lack validation checkpoints, capping this at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is split into well-organized sections with a clearly signaled one-level reference to the OpenAPI spec (`docs/openapi.yaml` / `GET /api/openapi/spec`) for detailed payloads; no nested references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |