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.
A well-structured, mostly lean creation workflow with concrete file structure, frameworks, and a final verification step. It lacks a copy-paste code template and an explicit error-recovery loop, which cap actionability and workflow clarity at 4.
Suggestions
Add a minimal copy-paste component/stories code template so Claude has an executable starting point rather than only referencing existing components.
Turn the Verify step into an explicit feedback loop (e.g., 'If lint/typecheck/tests fail, fix and re-run before proceeding') to strengthen workflow clarity.
Trim the redundant opening line ('following the project's standards and file structure') which restates the H1 and adds no new information.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (brief directives, file tree, command list); minor padding like the redundant intro line 'following the project's standards and file structure' keeps it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete file names, frameworks (Vitest + RTL, CVA, Storybook CSF), patterns (Object.assign, asChild), and commands (npm run lint/typecheck) are given, but no copy-paste component code template is included, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 10-step workflow ends in an explicit Verify step (lint, typecheck, tests, Storybook); not a destructive or batch operation so the cap does not apply, but there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into When to Use, Instructions, and Examples sections with one-level references to existing repo components and no nested references; no bundle files exist, so structure is self-contained and clean, just without the ideal separate-reference split that would reach 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |