Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A thorough, highly actionable batch-archive workflow with strong sequencing and validation for a destructive batch operation. Its main weakness is verbosity from redundant output examples and inline reference-style material that could be split into bundled files.
Suggestions
Collapse the 'Output On Success/Partial/No Changes' templates into a single parameterized example to remove overlap with step 9's summary.
Move the two 'Conflict Resolution Examples' into a referenced file (e.g. references/conflict-resolution.md) and link to it from step 5 to reduce the main body length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete commands, but the three 'Output On…' templates duplicate step 9's summary example and the Guardrails restate points already covered in the steps. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands (openspec list/status --json, mkdir/mv), concrete file paths, and copy-paste-ready table and output formats throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (batch validation, consolidated status table, single confirmation, per-change outcome tracking) and a feedback loop (archive target exists -> fail that change, continue). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is well-sectioned with clear headers, but at ~235 lines it is monolithic; conflict-resolution examples and the multiple output templates are inline when they could live in referenced files, and no bundle files are present. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |