Content
67%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-sequenced, actionable workflow with real openspec commands, explicit tool calls, and validation checkpoints for the batch artifact-creation loop. Its main weakness is conciseness: the context/rules constraint and step-4 instructions are repeated across multiple sections rather than stated once.
Suggestions
State the 'context/rules are constraints, not output content' rule once in the Artifact Creation Guidelines and reference it from step 4a and the guardrails instead of repeating it three times.
Merge or trim the 'Artifact Creation Guidelines' section so it does not restate the step 4a instructions; keep only guidance not already covered there.
Add a brief error-recovery branch for the 'verify each artifact file exists' guardrail (e.g., what to do if the file is missing or status is not 'done') to push workflow_clarity toward 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'context and rules are constraints for you, not file content' rule is restated in step 4a, the Artifact Creation Guidelines, and the guardrails, and the Guidelines section largely rehashes step 4, which is noticeable redundancy rather than a minor trim. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, executable commands (openspec new/status/instructions) and names the exact tools (TodoWrite, AskUserQuestion) with the JSON fields to parse, fitting 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' — it stops short of a concrete filled-in artifact example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced with validation checkpoints (re-run status after each artifact, check applyRequires status done, verify each file exists), and the batch-creation operation has validation so it is not capped at 3; it falls short of 5 because error-recovery when verification fails is not spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files are present and the single-file body is well-organized into Input/Steps/Output/Guidelines/Guardrails with no inlined content that belongs in a separate file; the minor organization gap is the Guidelines section restating step 4, keeping it below the clean anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |