Content
56%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 provides a clear scene-based workflow with validation checkpoints and an opinionated, concrete library policy, but it dilutes this with agent-scheduling boilerplate, triple-repeated rules, duplicated reference lists, and abstract implementation steps that lack inline executable examples. Consolidating the redundant sections and naming the actual verification commands would tighten it considerably.
Suggestions
Merge the two References lists into one deduplicated list with consistent paths, and state explicitly which files must be read before implementation.
Replace abstract scene descriptions ('ACT: Implement UI, state, styles, validation, and integration') with one concrete inline example — e.g., a minimal client-component wrapper of a shadcn primitive — and point to snippets.md for the rest.
Name the actual verification commands (e.g., 'pnpm lint && pnpm typecheck && pnpm test') instead of 'typically lint, typecheck, tests', and drop the SSL-primitive/scheduling boilerplate that adds tokens without guiding execution.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly tight tables and lists, but it carries agent-config boilerplate ('Intent signature', 'Control-flow features', the SSL primitive table), repeats 'treat components/ui/* as read-only' three times (Guardrails, UI Implementation, and the closing IMPORTANT callout), duplicates the References list, and pads Guardrail 6 with rhetoric ('touch it and die') — fitting 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | There is concrete, executable material (the 'rg --files' / 'rg "components/ui|..."' workflow, named shadcn tools, a definitive library table), but the core workflow steps remain abstract ('ACT: Implement UI, state, styles, validation') with no executable code or command for the main implementation path — 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Entry → Scenes (PREPARE/ACQUIRE/ACT/VERIFY/FINALIZE) sequence is clear, VERIFY is an explicit checkpoint with a failure-and-recovery feedback loop ('If verification fails, fix before handoff'), a checklist runs before handoff, and exit criteria state success and partial success. It misses the 5 anchor because verification commands are only 'typically lint, typecheck, tests' rather than named commands. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A dedicated References section with one-level-deep pointers exists, but it is duplicated (a numbered list 1-3 followed by a bullet list repeating execution-protocol.md, examples.md, and checklist.md) and mixes three path conventions (resources/, ../_shared/core/, ../../rules/), so organization 'could be better organized' per the 3 anchor rather than the cleanly structured 4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |