Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, highly actionable config-driven overview with an executable command and concrete contract rules, but it lacks an explicit validation checkpoint for its batch render step and under-organizes its bundled-script references.
Suggestions
Add a validation step to the Run section, e.g. after rendering verify '<dir>/finals/master-clean.mp4' exists and has non-zero size, and on failure re-run with the frame-stepped renderer before retrying encode.
Surface the bundled scripts as a short one-level reference list (e.g. 'build_storyboard_preview.py — free preview gallery; build_text_overlays.py — transparent text-zone PNGs') so their roles and navigation are clear.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and dense — every line earns its place (config-driven schema reference, env overrides, contract bullets) with no explaining of concepts Claude already knows; it assumes competence throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives an executable run command with concrete output path ('render_master.py --config config.json --project <dir>' -> '<dir>/finals/master-clean.mp4'), names bundled scripts, and specifies env overrides (RENDER_PYTHON, FFMPEG) — copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The single render step is clear, but this batch/encode operation has no explicit validation checkpoint (e.g. verify the mp4 exists and is non-empty, or re-render on a frame-stepping failure), which the rubric caps at 2 for destructive/batch operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is minimal (Run + Contract sections) and the inline schema reference points to a bundled config.example.json / ad_sample.recipe.config rather than well-signaled one-level-deep reference files; navigation between the bundled scripts is implied but not clearly organized. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |