Content
78%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 technical contract: lean, concrete, and exemplary in its progressive disclosure via a purpose-mapped references table. The main improvement is making the build flow a more explicit numbered sequence with validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Convert the 'Building a composition' section into an explicitly numbered end-to-end sequence with validation checkpoints between stages (e.g., after sizing, after timeline registration, before lint).
Inline a minimal complete composition skeleton so the core example is copy-paste ready without first opening references/minimal-composition.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and technical, assuming Claude's competence without explaining basics; a few explanatory asides (transport rule, host-id convention) could be trimmed slightly but mostly earn their tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout — specific lint error codes, executable patterns like `gsap.fromTo(el, { x: -40 }, { x: 0 })`, and CLI commands (`npx hyperframes check`); a full inline composition example is delegated to a reference rather than shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Validation section provides an explicit checklist with approval gating and a feedback loop ('Clear lint errors before you trust those numbers'); the build section is topical rather than a strictly numbered sequence, leaving minor checkpoint gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear References table maps each of 18 real bundle files to a 'Read it to…' purpose at one level of depth; the body is an overview/contract with details correctly split into references/. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |