Content
72%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.
The content is concise and mostly actionable with a clear sequenced workflow, but it references a script that is not bundled and lacks an explicit verification step for destructive edits to existing notes. Fixing the missing script reference and adding a post-edit preservation check would raise the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced snippets/markdown_toc.py in a scripts/ (or snippets/) directory, or remove the command and inline a simpler TOC-finding step so no referenced file is missing.
Add an explicit post-edit verification step (e.g., re-read the restaurant section to confirm prior visits are still present and visits are split, not blended) to satisfy the destructive/batch validation requirement.
Confirm the rg placeholder syntax is copy-paste runnable, or show a concrete example substitution so users can execute it directly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with compact bullets and no padding about concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (markdown_toc.py, rg) and a copy-ready output template, but the referenced snippets/markdown_toc.py is not present in the bundle, leaving one non-executable reference. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced and states preservation rules, but destructive edits to an existing notes file lack an explicit post-edit verification checkpoint, which the rubric caps at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are clean and well-structured, but the body points to snippets/markdown_toc.py which does not exist in any bundle directory — a broken reference that impedes navigation. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |