Content
75%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.
A well-structured, actionable debugging methodology that sequences its steps clearly and assumes Claude's intelligence; the main improvements are removing the duplicated category list and making the validation/retry loop more explicit.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the root-cause category enum, which currently appears both in 'Method step 4' and in the 'Output Format' block.
Make the validate-fix-retry feedback loop explicit (e.g., after VERIFICATION fails, re-classify and re-plan) rather than leaving it implicit in NEXT_ACTION.
Trim or condense the 'Common Rationalizations' table if the same guard is already enforced by the 'Critical Rule' section to reduce redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean structured lists and assumes Claude's competence, but the category list is duplicated between step 4 and the Output Format and the Rationalizations table lightly pads. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout — exact files to inspect, a fixed category enum, and a copy-ready output template — with only minor gaps typical of a methodology skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six numbered method steps are clearly sequenced with decision branches (RETRY/BLOCK/STOP) and a VERIFICATION checkpoint, though the validate-fix-retry loop is somewhat implicit rather than explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the single file is well-organized into clear sections and stays appropriately self-contained, with only minor organization redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |