Content
63%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 is concise and clearly sequenced with concrete setup commands, but the core search/read procedure is vague and the existing acceptance-criteria.md reference is not surfaced.
Suggestions
Add concrete guidance for the search/read steps, e.g. preferred tools or commands (grep/ripgrep, glob patterns) and what 'gather evidence' entails.
Link references/acceptance-criteria.md from the body (e.g. a 'Quality bar' section) so the bundle file is discoverable rather than orphaned.
Trim editorializing like '10x more useful' and 'Think step by step' to keep the body lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and well-organized with only minor editorializing ('a diagram makes the answer 10x more useful', 'Think step by step') that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete git commands and citation formats are provided, but the core 'Search the codebase' and 'Read those files' steps give no concrete method or tooling, leaving a key detail missing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence exists with one explicit checkpoint ('Do NOT proceed until source repo context is resolved'), though validation/feedback for the answer synthesis itself is only implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized, but the bundle file references/acceptance-criteria.md is never referenced or signaled from the body, so an existing reference is effectively buried. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |