Content
86%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 an exceptionally lean, well-sequenced panel-review workflow with an explicit verification checkpoint and a clear decision taxonomy. The only meaningful gap is the unspecified method for assembling the evidence package and the absence of output examples.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete sub-steps or an example for building the evidence package (step 2) so the method, not just the intent, is actionable.
Show a brief example of the recorded decision format in `.plans/<task>.md` (step 7) so the expected output is unambiguous.
Optionally add a short feedback loop for step 5 (e.g., "if a claim cannot be verified, mark it unproven and exclude from consensus") to strengthen error recovery.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~25-line numbered workflow is lean, assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of "evidence package" or "load-bearing claims"), and every line earns its place with no padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete directives with named specialist roles, named decision categories, and a concrete path (`.plans/<task>.md`), but step 2 leaves the method for building the evidence package unspecified and no output examples are provided. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 1-7 sequence with an explicit verification checkpoint (step 5) and a decision-categorization checklist (step 6); it is not a destructive/batch operation so the cap does not apply, but there is no error-recovery feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, self-contained with no external references needed and no bundle files; the simple-skill exception applies and the content is well-organized as a numbered workflow. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |