Content
81%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 content is a well-structured, actionable workflow with concrete Flet-specific APIs and a verification checklist supplying the validation feedback loop the rubric rewards. Minor conciseness and code-completeness gaps keep it just below the top anchor.
Suggestions
Add one small complete assert_screenshot/create_gif code snippet showing the canonical call signature and arguments so the common case is copy-paste ready.
Tighten the longer bullets in the Workflow and Docs Update Rules sections by dropping explanatory clauses that restate what the API already implies.
Consider promoting the referenced example test files (e.g. test_alert_dialog.py) into a short "See also" callout under Workflow step 1 so the reference is signaled at the point of use, not only listed at the end.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Flet competence (uses API names like assert_screenshot, pump_and_settle without explanation), with only minor over-explanation in a few bullets that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete API calls, exact repo paths, and naming examples make the guidance executable, though no single complete copy-paste code block is provided for the common case. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence is paired with an explicit "Verification Checklist" that acts as a validation feedback loop for the media-replacement and golden-file operations. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections (Workflow, Naming, Docs Update Rules, Verification Checklist, References) are well-organized with navigable example-file references, but the references are repo paths rather than separately bundled docs to drill into. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |