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.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced batch-archive workflow with strong validation and feedback loops. Its main gap is progressive disclosure: everything lives inline in one large file with no external references.
Suggestions
Move the 'Conflict Resolution Examples' and the three 'Output On...' templates into a separate references file (e.g. references/examples.md) and link to it from the main steps to reduce inline bulk.
Consolidate step 9's summary with the 'Output On Success/Partial/No Changes' templates to remove the duplicated output formatting.
Trim or relocate the verbose conflict-resolution walkthroughs into a reference, keeping only the resolution rules in the main body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely efficient action steps, tables, and templates, but the three separate 'Output On...' templates partially duplicate step 9's summary and the conflict-resolution examples add length that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands (`openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change`, `mkdir -p`, `mv`), exact file paths, regex patterns, and tool usage, covering the common cases concretely. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 9-step batch workflow with explicit validation (status gathering, conflict detection, user confirmation before the destructive batch) and feedback loops (per-change outcome tracking, continue-on-failure), satisfying the batch-operation validation requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The ~230-line body is well sectioned but entirely monolithic with no bundle files (references/scripts/assets absent); substantial inline content like conflict-resolution examples and output templates could be split into one-level-deep reference files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |