Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and gives a usable executable example, but it has a hollow 'Available SDK Clients' section, a redundant safety table, and no validation checkpoints in the workflow.
Suggestions
Fill in the 'Available SDK Clients' section with the actual sub-clients (or tell Claude how to discover them, e.g. 'inspect webhook_audience_test_sdk::api'), and replace the placeholder client.resource.get with a real call.
Collapse the Regeneration Safety table into the Architecture listing (or vice versa) to remove the duplicated file roster.
Add a verification step such as 'cargo build' must succeed and running the command returns expected JSON before the task is complete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and domain-specific with no generic-concept padding, but the Regeneration Safety table duplicates the Architecture listing and section 2 ('Available SDK Clients') is effectively empty. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides an executable register() example and concrete build commands, but the 'Available SDK Clients' section lists nothing and client.resource.get is a placeholder, so key API-surface details are missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The edit -> pattern -> build/run sequence is clear and numbered, but there are no validation or test checkpoints (e.g. 'cargo build succeeds' or a smoke test) before declaring done. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized file with clearly labeled sections (Overview, Architecture, Adding a Custom Command, Regeneration Safety, Build & Test), no external references needed, and no deep nesting. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |