Content
81%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 orchestration body: clear goal/scope, ordered phase references, explicit exit-criteria checkpoints with feedback loops, and hard working rules. The main issues are verbatim duplication of constraints.md in Working Rules and four dead, conflicting reference files left in the bundle.
Suggestions
Delete the four stale unreferenced files in references/ (phase-2-runtime-profile.md, phase-3-sampling-plan.md, phase-4-execute-snapshots.md, phase-5-patch-simulation.md) from the old phase numbering — their content conflicts with the current phase files and misleads when the bundle is listed.
Trim Working Rules bullets that restate constraints.md verbatim (the PR-diff rule, the unmapped-coordinates rule, the async-snapshot rule) down to the pointer 'Follow every constraint in Constraints' plus only phase-flow-specific rules.
Add one minimal inline example of a phase artifact or stop condition (e.g. the shape of a snapshot entry or the Phase 1 not-verifiable message) so the checkpoints' criteria are unambiguous without opening a reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the Working Rules section restates several constraints nearly verbatim ("Never use `deployed_sha` → `pr_head_sha` as the PR review diff"; "Never query, instrument, or snapshot PR-only or unmapped coordinates") that references/constraints.md already owns, despite also pointing to it. This is the 'minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor rather than the fully lean anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and specific for an orchestration body — ordered reference reading, per-phase artifacts ("snapshot entries exist for the highest-value uncovered verification areas (up to 3)"), and identifier-level rules — but all executable detail (commands, message formats, examples of a Phase 1 stop or Sampling Request) is delegated to reference files with no inline example. This fits 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The phases are clearly sequenced (0–6 in order) with an explicit per-phase exit-criteria checklist and genuine feedback loops: "Do not advance a phase until its exit criteria are satisfied; loop back to the prior phase when evidence is incomplete" and the Phase 5 Sampling Request stop protocol for zero-hit locations. This matches the anchor 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with a well-signaled, numbered, one-level-deep reference list and all 10 referenced files exist. However, the actual bundle contains four stale unreferenced files from an older phase numbering (phase-2-runtime-profile.md, phase-3-sampling-plan.md, phase-4-execute-snapshots.md, phase-5-patch-simulation.md) whose content conflicts with the current phase files (e.g. the old runtime-profile check vs. the current 'coming soon' stub), creating a navigation hazard when the bundle is listed. This fits 'good structure with minor organization gaps' rather than the clean anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |