Content
82%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.
An exemplarily concise orchestrating body: a clearly sequenced 9-step workflow with explicit confirmation and validation checkpoints, delegating detail to real, well-organized reference files. The residual gaps are small — the applicable quality gate and the rendering/preview mechanism are not surfaced directly from the body.
Suggestions
In step 6, name the two quality gates (e.g., the new-issue vs evidence-comment gates from bug-report-contract.md) so the applicable gate is identifiable without re-consulting the reference.
Link rendering.md (and its render script) directly from step 6, since the confirmation preview depends on it but it is currently only discoverable through second-level references.
Add an explicit feedback loop for gate failure in the body (e.g., "if the gate fails, fix the draft and re-run it before previewing") to make the validation cycle self-contained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 28-line body is lean with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every step carries operational constraints that earn their tokens ("never invent observations, impact, or severity", "approval of a draft is not approval to create"). This matches the anchor for a lean, efficient body where every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps are concrete and directive (which file to read at which step, what to search for, what to preview, what to return), which is mostly executable guidance. Minor gaps remain: step 6 says "Run the applicable quality gate" without naming the gate inline, and the preview mechanism (rendering.md / render_issue.py) is not linked from the body at all, so anchor 5's fully self-sufficient guidance is not met. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 9-step sequence is clear with explicit checkpoints (quality gate, preview of target/action/content/fields/manifest, explicit confirmation before create, exact-failure reporting without blind retry), so the destructive-write cap does not apply. The gate-failure fix-and-revalidate loop is only implicit in the body (it lives in the reference files), which is the minor validation gap that keeps this below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a lean overview with five well-signaled, one-level-deep references that all exist in references/, and heavy detail is appropriately split out. However, rendering.md is only reachable via second-level links from other reference files and the scripts/ directory is not navigable from the body at all, so the structure has minor organization gaps rather than the fully one-level-deep, easy navigation of anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |