Content
78%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 lean, well-sequenced orchestration body with strong verification and licensing guidance, whose only notable flaw is that the phase files it routes the entire workflow through are missing from the bundle. Fixing the bundle (or inlining essential phase guidance) would raise this substantially.
Suggestions
Ship the six referenced phase files (phases/1-discovery.md through phases/6-verify.md) in the bundle, or inline the essential per-phase guidance — the body currently routes the core workflow through files that do not exist.
Name the concrete build command in 'Verify the result' (e.g., the EmDash/Astro build command) so the verification step is executable without loading the external building-emdash-site skill.
Make the fix-and-re-verify loop explicit after rendered comparison (e.g., 'when a viewport comparison mismatches, adjust the layout and re-capture') to close the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is pure directive content — e.g., 'Dynamic EmDash content routes must remain server-rendered', 'Do not infer that demo content or images share the theme code's license' — with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is Astro/WordPress' padding). Every token earns its place; matches anchor 5 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands exist ('run `agent-browser skills get core --full`') and the mapping bullets give executable decisions ('Custom post types, metadata, and taxonomies become EmDash collections, fields, and taxonomies'). Falls short of anchor 5 because some steps are not self-contained: 'Build the site' names no command, and mappings like 'Theme Customizer values become site settings or explicit project configuration' leave the choice open without a decision rule — anchor 4 'concrete code or commands with minor gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (evidence choice → concept mapping → ordered phases 1-6 → verification) with real checkpoints: 'Confirm the destination before writing' and a verification checklist ('responsive navigation, content with long and missing values, RTL... empty or error states'). Not 5 because the error-recovery feedback loop (compare fails → fix → re-verify) is implied by phase 6 but never made explicit in the body; verification steps are present so the destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview design is excellent — 'Read a phase file only when that phase applies' gates six well-named phase files, and references/concept-mapping.md exists and is well-integrated — but six of the seven internal referenced paths (phases/1-discovery.md through phases/6-verify.md) do not exist in the bundle, breaking navigation for the core workflow. Per the rubric's instruction to score against the actual bundle structure, this lands at anchor 3: good structure, but the referenced paths largely do not resolve — not the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |