Content
75%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 a concise, actionable, well-sequenced workflow with real validation checkpoints and a feedback loop for merge conflicts. It is held back from top marks only by minor gaps — implicit test-failure retry guidance and a couple of manual reconciliation steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and command-driven — a compact transformation table plus targeted bash/git blocks — and assumes Claude's competence without explaining concepts; only minor phrases like 'no more literal `**asterisks**`' could be trimmed, so it clears the 3 but stops short of the perfectly lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every phase ships concrete, copy-paste-ready commands (test -f check, git remote add/fetch/merge, npm install/build, vitest run, launchctl/systemctl), with only a couple of guided-manual steps ('reconcile both sides manually', 'edit manually or git checkout'), matching 'mostly executable guidance; minor gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-phase sequence (Pre-flight → Apply → Verify) with explicit validation gates ('All 73 tests should pass and the build should be clean before continuing') and a conflict feedback loop (checkout --theirs → add → merge --continue); not quite a 5 because test-failure retry guidance is only implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (phases, Signal integration, Removal) in a single self-contained file with no nested references; the Signal integration detail is reasonably inline rather than buried, fitting 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than the one-level-deep-reference 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |