Content
65%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is actionable and well-sequenced with concrete git commands and a clear output format, but it is somewhat redundant (duplicated type catalog), lacks an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow, and fails to route to the bundle files that ship alongside it.
Suggestions
Link the existing bundle assets from the body — e.g., reference assets/commit_template.txt for the full template and assets/example_diff.txt as a worked input, and reference scripts/commit_analyzer.py for automated type detection — instead of inlining and duplicating that material.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow, such as a step that verifies the generated header is under 72 characters and that the type/scope match the staged diff before finalizing the message.
De-duplicate the commit-type catalog so it appears once (either in Instructions or as a reference to commit_template.txt) to tighten token usage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete commands and a compact error table, but the commit-type catalog is duplicated across the Overview and Instructions sections, and the example 'Resources'/'Examples' sections add length that could be tightened — fitting the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than the lean 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, copy-paste-ready git commands ('git diff --cached --stat', 'git diff --cached', 'git log --oneline -10'), an explicit output format ('type(scope): imperative description under 72 characters'), and a concrete error-handling table — fully executable guidance with no pseudocode or vague direction. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The nine numbered steps form a clear sequence, but validation checkpoints are only implicit (e.g. 'Check for breaking changes', 'Check recent commit history') with no explicit verify-then-proceed gate or validate→fix→retry loop embedded in the flow; the error table provides recovery but no in-workflow checkpoint, matching the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is organized into clear sections rather than a monolithic wall, but it never references or links to the bundle files that actually exist (assets/commit_template.txt, assets/example_diff.txt, scripts/commit_analyzer.py), and it inlines a commit-type catalog and output template that duplicate the commit_template.txt asset — fitting the 'references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |