Content
71%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 and actionable, with a strong session protocol, explicit validation checkpoints, and exemplary progressive disclosure into real reference and script files. Its main weakness is token efficiency: the generic TDD-cycle diagram duplicates knowledge Claude already has, and workflow guidance lacks failure-recovery loops.
Suggestions
Cut or compress the TDD CYCLE ASCII diagram to one line ('Follow red-green-refactor: write failing test, minimal code to pass, refactor, then verify E2E'); Claude already knows TDD, and the saved tokens are pure waste.
Convert the 45-line boxed session protocol into a compact numbered checklist to reclaim tokens without losing the project-specific steps.
Add a brief failure-recovery branch to the workflow (e.g., 'if a test will not pass after implementation, check feature_list.json steps and blockers, and leave the feature incomplete rather than marking it done') to close the workflow-clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The session protocol encodes genuinely new project-specific state (claude-progress.txt, feature_list.json, feature IDs, init.sh), but the second ASCII diagram re-explains the generic Red-Green-Refactor TDD cycle, a concept Claude already knows, and both boxed diagrams are token-heavy for what they convey. 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' fits best; not 4 because the redundant TDD primer is a clear trim candidate. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Quick start gives executable Python against the bundled CodingAgent class, the commit section pairs a concrete format with a filled-in example, and the protocol names specific files and commands. Not 5 because the examples cover only the happy path (no handling for failed feature selection or script errors). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step session protocol is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("Verify test fails", "Verify test passes", "Verify E2E", "VERIFY BEFORE MARKING: Feature must actually pass"). Not 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop for what to do when a verification step fails mid-cycle. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Quick start, key rules, and commit format sit inline at the right altitude, while detailed material is clearly signaled and one level deep (references/CODING-WORKFLOW.md, TDD-PATTERNS.md, COMMIT-CONVENTIONS.md, plus a scripts section) — all verified to exist as real files with substantial content. Matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |