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.
The body is an efficient, well-structured overview that gives concrete per-folder agent behaviors and a clear stage flow. It could nudge actionability and workflow clarity higher by enumerating concrete publication targets and adding an explicit review/validate gate before publish.
Suggestions
Enumerate concrete publication targets (e.g. Substack, Ghost, Mirror) tied to `target_form` so the "suggest publication targets" behavior is directly actionable.
Add an explicit review/verification checkpoint between drafts and published (e.g. confirm `status: review` passed and canonical URL resolved before marking immutable) to strengthen the workflow's validation gate.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~24-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: the ASCII stage diagram and terse per-folder rules carry maximum information per token with no padding or over-explanation of known concepts. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is present (a real `write({ document: { path, template } })` call, specific 30/14-day thresholds, concrete paths like `drafts/<slug>/research/`), but some behaviors stay abstract ("suggest publication targets based on `target_form`") with no enumerated targets. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The ideas → drafts → published flow is clearly sequenced with a `status: drafting/review` gate as a checkpoint, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, leaving a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed and well-organized sections (overview diagram, per-folder rules, templates), satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top progressive-disclosure score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |