Content
68%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 well-structured, concise, and actionable with executable examples and a correctly deferred API reference to a real bundle file. Its main weakness is workflow clarity, where the high-level steps lack explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the Workflow (e.g., 'Execute: run test suite — if failures occur, stop and report before Analyze') so the sequence has a concrete feedback loop.
Tighten the Validation Result JSON example to a single criterion or reference a sample file, reducing the inline payload.
Expand the terse Workflow step labels with the specific command or call each step performs (e.g., the validator method invoked at Execute and Analyze).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean with terse bullet lists and a focused Quick Start, though the full Validation Result JSON example and the emphatic State Transition block could be trimmed slightly. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Quick Start provides executable Python ("from scripts.criteria_validator import CriteriaValidator" with await validate_feature) and Validation Rules as concrete YAML, with the bulk of implementation correctly deferred to scripts/criteria_validator.py; minor gaps remain in setup/teardown detail. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step Workflow (Load, Discover, Execute, Analyze, Report) is clearly sequenced, but the steps are terse single-line labels and lack explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops within the process. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into sections with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ("See scripts/criteria_validator.py for full implementation") that resolves to a real bundle file; only minor organization gaps remain. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |