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 well-structured, highly actionable instruction spec with explicit validation checkpoints and a verification checklist, leaning efficient and assuming Claude's competence. Its main limitations are no rendered diff example and a propose/confirm flow rather than a strict validate-fix-retry loop.
Suggestions
Add one rendered unified-diff or before/after example in step 7 to make the proposal format concrete and copy-paste ready.
Tighten the Context section and consolidate the repeated IDE path enumerations in step 2 to reduce token load.
Add an explicit validate-and-retry micro-loop (e.g., re-read artifact after write and re-diff) to strengthen the feedback loop for destructive writes.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is information-dense and assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept padding), with only minor contextual exposition in the Context section that could be trimmed; it is not noticeably verbose. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete executable guidance — exact file paths, CLI flags, stop messages, classification rules, and a git diff command — with a minor gap being the absence of a rendered before/after diff example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step sequence has explicit validation checkpoints ('Diff before write', confirm before each write, a Verify step) plus a verification checklist, but the flow is propose/confirm/verify rather than a tight validate-fix-retry loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into Overview/Context/Rules/Instructions/Verification sections with a real one-level-deep bundle asset (assets/AGENTS.template.md) referenced via operational paths; minor gaps are the dense path lists in step 2 and the asset serving as data rather than a navigation pointer. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |