Content
52%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.
A well-organized, token-efficient contract with explicit validation and fail-fast checkpoints, but the guidance stays at the directive level — no concrete interview mechanics, output templates, or worked examples. The Progressive Disclosure section points at files that do not exist in the bundle, breaking navigation to the deferred content.
Suggestions
Add concrete execution mechanics: one example interview question, a short template for the gap list and approval-ready summary, and what counts as a 'focused surface' so steps like 'Inspect 2-3 focused surfaces' are executable rather than directive.
Fix the dangling references: cite paths that exist in the bundle (references/contract.yaml, references/evals.yaml, references/task-profile.json) or actually ship the cited Infrastructure/references files, and drop the one-level-deep pointer to the non-existent deferred-skill-context directory.
Trim redundancy by merging the overlapping Philosophy/Avoid/Gotchas/Anti-Patterns bullets (e.g., deferred-file loading is stated twice) and removing the verbatim repetition of the frontmatter description in the body opening.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, bullet-based, and assumes competence without explaining known concepts. Not 5 because of redundancy: the frontmatter description is repeated verbatim in the opening, and Philosophy/Avoid/Gotchas/Anti-Patterns overlap (e.g., deferred-reference guidance appears in both Gotchas and Anti-Patterns). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The workflow steps are high-level directives ("Inspect 2-3 focused surfaces before expanding scope", "Take the smallest action that advances the confirmed goal") with no concrete mechanics: no example interview question, no template for the gap list or approval-ready summary, and no illustration of what an output looks like. Not 3 because even pseudocode-level specifics or a worked example are absent, leaving only abstract direction. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step sequence is clearly ordered with explicit checkpoints: "Stop at the first failed gate or blocker and report exact evidence" plus a validate→fix→rerun feedback loop ("Rerun the relevant validation after fixes before claiming completion"). Not 5 because the steps themselves are abstract, so error recovery cannot be followed mechanically; not 3 because validation checkpoints and feedback loops are explicitly present, not implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are clearly signaled ("Use `Infrastructure/references/software-literature-expert-lens-pack.md`...") but dangling: none of the cited paths exist in the bundle, whose references/ directory contains only contract.yaml, evals.yaml, and task-profile.json — none of which the body links to. Not 3 because navigation to the deferred material is broken rather than merely under-signaled; not 1 because the body itself is short and well-sectioned rather than a monolithic wall. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |