Content
85%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 content is highly actionable and workflow-safe: executable commands verified against real scripts, a hard validation gate with error-recovery loops, and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is token efficiency — several procedures (skill-creator delegation, logo generation, language rules) are repeated verbatim across sections and could be consolidated.
Suggestions
State the skill-creator delegation once (e.g., in the Round 4 decision step) and reference it from the completion gate and After-Initialization steps instead of repeating the full instruction three times.
Fold the completion-gate logo step into a single reference to the Employee Logo Generation section rather than re-specifying the prompt components, save path, and icon update in both places.
Merge the three separate no-translation/single-language reminders (Language Generation Strategy, Round 1, and Generating Files) into one rule in the language section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is operational and free of concept explanations Claude already knows, but whole instructions repeat systematically: the skill-creator delegation appears three times (Round 4 step 8, the paragraph after the completion gate, and After-Initialization step 4), logo generation is fully specified twice (the Logo Generation section and completion-gate step 1), and the no-translations rule is stated three times. This is more than the minor trimming of anchor 4, but not the padded known-concept explanation of anchor 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste shell_exec commands for init_crew.py (--config), check_crew.py, and all three tools.py subcommands (verified against the actual scripts), a concrete JSON config payload example, and specific parameters and thresholds (size="1024x1024", 500KB logo limit, icon: field). Covers the common init, edit, verification, and tool-query cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step flows are clearly sequenced with explicit validation ("Verify that check_crew.py returns \"ok\": true. If any error is returned, fix the issues immediately before proceeding"), feedback loops ("revise the workflow content and validate it again", re-ask when the user is unsure in Round 4), a hard completion gate, and a rendered verification checklist — matching the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation, error recovery, and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body keeps workflows inline while splitting detailed specs into four real, one-level-deep reference files (crew-file-format.md, prompt-engineering-guide.md, avatar-generation-guide.md, available-tools.md — all verified to exist), each signaled at its point of use and summarized in the Reference Documents section; no reference points through to another reference, so navigation is easy and depth is one level. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |