Content
92%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 tight, well-structured iterative review loop with explicit validation and feedback checkpoints and a single clearly-signaled external reference; the only minor gap is unspecified mechanics for the 'define' and 'capture' steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a one-line setup note plus a terse numbered loop and two guardrail sentences, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance with real commands and paths ('npm --prefix benchmarks run download-fixtures', 'benchmarks/fixtures/real-world/', 'panel-review'), but steps 1 and 3 ('Define the user-visible surface', 'Capture actual output') leave minor gaps in how to execute, fitting score 4 rather than the fully copy-paste-ready 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 7-step loop with an explicit validation gate (panel-review on evidence) and feedback loop (re-run the same corpus, compare, stop when no blocks), plus guardrails ('Keep the corpus stable', 'Preserve output contracts'), matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, well-organized into a numbered process with one clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference ([benchmark setup](../../../BENCHMARKS.md#comparative-benchmarks)); the simple-skill exception applies, so well-organized sections alone justify a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |