Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with a clear sequenced workflow and validation checkpoints. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure — everything lives inline in one long file — and mild verbosity in the template prose.
Suggestions
Move the four email template frameworks into a referenced file (e.g. templates.md) and keep only one compact example inline to reduce token load.
Tighten the bracketed placeholder prose in templates and drop explanations of obvious concepts (e.g., why a referral is warmer than cold outreach).
Consider extracting the edge-case section into a reference file so the core Step 1-3 flow reads as a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is detailed and mostly efficient, but ~375 lines with verbose bracketed-placeholder template prose and some obvious-context explanation could be tightened, so it sits at 'mostly efficient but could be tighter'. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, copy-paste-ready template frameworks per category, a config JSON schema, routing tables, and explicit output formats — matching the 'fully executable / specific examples' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Step 1 (Categorize) → Step 2 (Draft) → Step 3 (Route) sequence with explicit validation checkpoints ('Draft ready for human review & send'), re-evaluation triggers, and feedback for error/edge cases. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single monolithic file with no bundle references; all templates, edge cases, and output formats are inline rather than split into one-level-deep reference files, fitting the 'structure present but content that should be separate is inline' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |