Content
82%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 highly actionable with a real, well-documented extraction script and a clear sequenced workflow including a completion checkpoint. Its main weakness is mild redundancy between the workflow and the dedicated script section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, with only minor redundancy: the extraction command and output schema are described in both the workflow step and the dedicated Extraction Script section, which could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a copy-paste-ready command referencing a real script (scripts/extract_pr_strings.py, verified present), a complete JSON output schema with worked examples, and concrete follow-up actions (delegate to /translation-review, validate Wikipedia links). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 3-step numbered sequence with an explicit completion checklist in step 1 serving as a validation checkpoint; the minor gap is no feedback loop describing what to do with review findings beyond reporting them. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into headed sections (Workflow, Extraction Script) with a one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference to scripts/extract_pr_strings.py that exists in the bundle; the inlined output-schema field docs are reasonable but slightly long for an overview. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |