Content
86%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 tight, well-structured attended workflow that delegates detail to genuine reference files with clear confirmation gating. Its main weakness is mild vagueness in a few procedural phrases and no explicit error-recovery loop.
Suggestions
Name the specific quality gate to run (or link to its definition) instead of "the applicable quality gate".
Add an explicit error-recovery step for creation failures beyond "return the exact failure without retrying".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~20-line body is lean, delegates detail to reference files, assumes Claude's competence, and contains no concept padding, so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps point to concrete reference files and prescribe specific actions (search read-only, run the quality gate, wait for confirmation), but phrases like "the applicable quality gate" and "optional fields" leave minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step sequence with explicit checkpoints (quality gate in step 6, confirmation gate in step 7), but it lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop beyond reporting failure without retry. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an overview with well-signaled one-level-deep markdown links to real reference files (configuration.md, jira-integration.md, bug-report-contract.md, attachments.md, jira-creation.md), all verified present in references/. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |