Content
93%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 tight, highly actionable workflow that respects Claude's competence and includes validation checkpoints. The only gap is an explicit 'if checks fail, fix and re-run' feedback loop.
Suggestions
Add an explicit error-recovery step, e.g. 'If regression or repository checks fail, fix the root cause and re-run before reporting.'
Optionally note how to surface disagreements with reviewers concretely (e.g. reply format or evidence expected) to strengthen the response-drafting step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance (collect file/line/author/thread status; inspect callers/tests/diff; classify into four buckets; smallest root-cause fix; run regression and repo checks) despite being instruction-only. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequence with checkpoints (inspect before acting, re-read final diff, call out unrun checks), but lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop for when checks fail. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and well-organized with clear sections and numbered steps. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |