Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is lean, highly actionable, and well-structured with a verified one-level reference. The main gap is workflow_clarity: the multi-step, failure-prone source-browsing process lacks an explicit validation/verification checkpoint and feedback loop.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the Workflow (e.g., 'For every ranked item, confirm a primary source link exists before writing its card; if not, demote or mark unread').
Insert a validate->fix->retry loop for source access failures: on a blocked source, record it under unread/access-blocked coverage, then retry with an alternate source type before finalizing the report.
Make the post-generation verification explicit (e.g., a final step: 'Verify all 10 items have a working primary link and the HTML file renders before returning the digest').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and directive with no preamble explaining concepts Claude already knows; nearly every line earns its place ('Pick exactly 10 items', 'Do not treat social posts... as final truth'). | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, copy-ready guidance: a specific output path, exact counts (10 items, <=100 Chinese characters, 3-5 trends, 1-3 actions), a fixed title format, and an enumerated item-card schema. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced, but validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit and there is no validate->fix->retry loop for the failure-prone source-browsing step, which the guidelines cap at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | It signals a single one-level-deep reference ('Read references/source-list.md...'), the referenced file exists and is a flat non-nested table, and the body is organized into clearly navigable sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |