Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-structured as a debugging checklist with genuine verification steps, but most steps give abstract direction rather than executable commands and the validation checkpoints are implicit. Adding concrete commands and explicit pass/fail gating would raise actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Provide executable commands for the abstract steps — e.g. the exact reduce/trace invocation and how to run the regression test — so guidance is copy-paste ready.
Make verification explicit with pass/fail gating: state what a passing regression test or matching old-vs-new output means and what to do if it fails.
Clarify step 3's 'Trace the finding through extract, resolve, graph...' with the specific command or tool to run at each layer.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no concept-explaining fluff; every line is an action and assumes Claude's competence, so each token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance appears ('--format json --quiet', 'review'), but most steps describe rather than instruct ('Reduce to a minimal fixture', 'Fix the earliest incorrect layer') with no executable commands. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 1–7 sequence with verification present (regression test, old-vs-new comparison, reviewer run), but checkpoints are implicit and lack an explicit error-recovery feedback loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed; the single well-organized numbered list qualifies for a 3 under the simple-skill guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |