Content
85%Reviews 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-structured with good progressive disclosure and a clear single-action workflow. The main weakness is conciseness: a hardcoded example date and redundant magic-number comments add tokens that do not earn their place.
Suggestions
Remove or generalize the embedded example timestamp "Updated: 2025-01-14 15:30:00" and its "# 2025 timestamp" comment, or move version/time-sensitive detail to a dedicated section.
Replace raw magic numbers (e.g. --min-cap 100000000) with clearer usage or rely on a single documented unit convention instead of repeating inline "# = $100M" clarifications on every command.
Tighten the large ASCII output mockup by trimming decorative border lines to reduce token cost while preserving column layout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient, but it embeds time-sensitive information ("Updated: 2025-01-14 15:30:00" with a "# 2025 timestamp" comment) and redundant inline magic-number comments rather than using human-readable flags, which the rubric penalizes outside a deprecated section. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Every instruction is a fully executable command against scanner.py with concrete flags and copy-paste-ready examples, matching the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The single scan action is unambiguous and the Error Handling table provides recovery guidance; as a read-only scan it does not require a destructive-operation validation loop, so the simple-skill allowance applies. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) that are all real bundle files, plus an inline pointer to errors.md. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |