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.
A lean, dense constraint document that respects the reader's intelligence and points to the right external docs at the right depth. Validation is explicit and scoped honestly ("Keep proof claims within the checks actually executed"), with the only gaps being delegated check commands and the absence of failure-handling guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every sentence carries non-obvious constraint information (ownership boundaries, retired-SDK warnings, dispatch/receipt ordering invariants) with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the level-5 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete file paths, a specific env var (BYOK_VERCEL_AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY), and specific invariants make the guidance mostly executable, but the actual check commands are delegated to the integration README rather than given inline, so it is not copy-paste ready as the level-5 anchor requires. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present (read the seam docs, make consumer changes, run focused checks, then typecheck) with explicit validation ("Run the affected focused checks listed in the integration README, then the repository's required typecheck"), so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. It falls short of level 5 because the sequence is implicit and no error-recovery feedback loop is given for failed checks. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and clearly signaled one-level-deep references ("Read [the local contributor guide]... and [the integration README]... for the affected seam"); no bundle files exist, so there is nothing to restructure — this fits the rubric's simple-skill level-5 case. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |