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 body is exceptionally lean and well-organized, with a rules table whose rationale column gives every rule a reason to exist. Its weakness is execution: no example hidden test, no numbered creation workflow, and opaque incident codes (S02, S12, ho-clock-canary) that the reader cannot resolve.
Suggestions
Add one complete example hidden test — code, file location, and the command to run it — so the table's rules are directly executable rather than descriptive.
Number the creation workflow (draft the test with random data → run it on the buggy base to confirm it fails → confirm it passes on a control fix → run instrument canaries) so the sequence and feedback loop are explicit.
Define or externalize the incident codes (S02, S12, S20, ho-clock-canary): either a one-line failure-mode description inline or a short reference file, since they currently assume context the reader does not have.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every rule row pairs a terse directive with the cheat it stops ('Random data every run; no fixed prefix | Hard-coded test data') and the Round 2 anecdote earns its place as motivation for the self-test rule — lean, no padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The rules name concrete assertion targets ('a file with the record, a new owned ID, a count +1' and 'independent channel (admin or tag count)'), which is real guidance, but there is no example test, code, file location, or command showing how to actually construct or run a hidden test — matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor rather than the executable-code anchor at 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'Exit criteria' supplies a validation gate ('fails on the buggy base and passes on a genuine fix... instrument canaries pass'), but the test-creation process has no ordered steps or fix-and-retry loop, leaving checkpoints without a sequence — the 3 anchor fits better than 4's 'clear sequence with most checkpoints'. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with three well-organized sections (rules table, instrument self-test, exit criteria) and no content bulky enough to warrant separate files, this hits the simple-skill case where well-organized sections alone justify a 5; no bundle files exist or are needed. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |