Content
67%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-engineered, highly actionable fix workflow with strong validation loops and a genuine one-level-deep reference bundle. Its main costs are redundancy in the entrypoint (rules repeated 3-5x), inconsistent step numbering, and detail (hash verification, language policy) that should be disclosed progressively rather than inlined.
Suggestions
State the fix-plan deletion rule once (e.g., in Important Rules) and reference it elsewhere; it currently appears five times across Step 0.1, Rules 3 and 12, and the DO NOT list.
Move the SHA256 research-drift verification procedure and the artifact-language translation policy into a reference file (e.g., references/FIX-PLAN.md), keeping only the decision rule in the entrypoint.
Renumber the workflow coherently (a labeled Step 3, and labeled Steps 5/6 matching the sections currently referenced by number only) so cross-references like 'Continue to Step 5 (Additional Test Coverage) and Step 6 (Patch)' resolve.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly dense, necessary project-specific policy with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but there is real redundancy that could be tightened: the 'delete only the default FIX_PLAN.md, preserve custom paths' rule is stated five times (Step 0.1, Rules 3 and 12, and two DO NOT bullets), and the regression-first policy is restated in several sections despite the explicit 'do not duplicate this policy' instruction. Not 2 because almost every sentence carries instructions rather than filler; not 4 because the repeated rules and heavy hedging prose are clearly trimmable. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact commands ('printenv HANDOFF_MODE || true', 'rm .ai-factory/FIX_PLAN.md'), a copy-paste MCP payload ('{ taskId: <extracted-id>, newStatus: "implementing", ... paused: true }'), exact parsing regexes, enumerated defaults, and scripted user prompts. Not 5 because several steps rely on placeholders and delegate the actual implementation detail to reference files, leaving minor gaps in the entrypoint itself. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear with explicit validation checkpoints and a genuine feedback loop (pre-fix regression check must fail, the exact same check must pass post-fix, with documented mismatch fallback), plus checklists (Important Rules, DO NOT list). Not 5 because numbering is inconsistent: 'Step 0 (pre)', 'Step 0', '0.1', '0.2', an unnumbered 'Apply the fix', no labeled Step 3, and Steps 5/6 are referenced by number but appear only as unnumbered sections ('Coverage and completion', 'Mandatory learning patch'). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All eight referenced files (FIX-PLAN, FIX-INVESTIGATION, FIX-IMPLEMENTATION, FIX-COMPLETION, FIX-LOGGING, FIX-EXAMPLES, FIX-OUTPUT, FIX-PATCH) exist in references/, are one level deep, and each is signaled with an explicit read condition ('only when a worked example is needed', 'before editing fix code'). Not 5 because the entrypoint still inlines deep operational detail — the SHA256 research-drift hashing procedure and the artifact-language translation policy — that belongs in a reference, keeping the overview heavier than it needs to be. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |