Content
50%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 leads with concrete, executable code and a clear phase sequence, but roughly a third of it pads the context window with TDD 101 (ASCII diagram, principles and test-type tables). Validation is implicit rather than built into the workflow, and both cited reference files are missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Cut the ASCII TDD CYCLE diagram and the Principles/Test Types tables — they re-teach red-green-refactor basics Claude already knows — and spend the budget on defining `criteria`/`project_dir` shapes instead.
Add an explicit failure-handling loop to the workflow (e.g. what to do when the RED test unexpectedly passes, when GREEN fails, when E2E verification fails) with concrete retry/validate calls.
Create `references/TDD-BEST-PRACTICES.md` and `references/TEST-PATTERNS.md` or remove the References section — both cited files are missing from the bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Three sections re-teach TDD fundamentals Claude already knows: the ~40-line ASCII "TDD CYCLE" diagram ("Write failing test / Test must fail"), the Principles table ("Tests First — Always write tests before implementation", "Small Steps"), and the Test Types table (unit/integration/E2E 101). This is several padded sections, exceeding anchor 3's 'some unnecessary explanation', though the Quick Start and Scripts sections are efficient so it is not anchor 1. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | "from scripts.tdd_workflow import TDDWorkflow ... await workflow.implement_feature(feature_id=\"auth-001\", acceptance_criteria=criteria)" plus the individual-phase calls give concrete, executable API usage. Not 5 because `criteria` and `project_dir` are never defined or exemplified, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Red → Green → Refactor → Verify sequence is clear via diagram and phase code, but validation checkpoints are only implicit (VERIFY appears in the diagram with no step-level instruction) and there is no guidance for what to do when a phase fails — only an integration-point mention "error-recoverer: Handle test failures". This matches anchor 3: sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are organized and all four listed scripts exist in the bundle, but the two cited references — "references/TDD-BEST-PRACTICES.md" and "references/TEST-PATTERNS.md" — do not exist in the bundle, so navigation paths are broken. Structure is decent (not anchor 2), but references are not 'mostly clear' when they point at missing files (not anchor 4). | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |