Content
75%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 content is a well-structured, actionable verification workflow with concrete CLI commands and clear output expectations, scoring solidly across all dimensions. The chief opportunities are tightening verbose bullets and making the spec-coverage codebase search more concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence without explaining known concepts, though some nested bullets and repeated recommendation phrasing could be trimmed slightly. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (`openspec list/status/instructions apply --json`), explicit checkbox parsing rules, and a defined output format; the "search codebase for keywords" / "assess if implementation likely exists" guidance is the main fuzzy gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An explicit 8-step numbered sequence with graceful-degradation branches for missing artifacts; being read-only verification it avoids the destructive-cap, but it lacks an explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single document is well-sectioned (Steps, Verification Heuristics, Graceful Degradation, Output Format); at ~157 lines it exceeds the simple-skill threshold so it does not qualify for the 5-anchor exception. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |