Content
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-organized with concrete templates and a clear sequenced workflow, but it stops short of fully actionable because the detailed methodology lives in reference files that are absent, and it lacks validation checkpoints and deduplicates its reference listings. Tightening redundancy and supplying or inlining the missing references would raise most dimensions.
Suggestions
Create the referenced files under references/ (research-phase.md, codebase-understanding.md, solution-design.md, plan-organization.md, output-standards.md, business-plan-template.md, personal-goal-template.md, generic-plan-template.md) or inline their key content so progressive disclosure is functional.
Add an explicit validation/verification checkpoint to the workflow (e.g., confirm all 7 required sections are present and metrics are SMART before finalizing a plan) to lift workflow_clarity.
De-duplicate the reference listings — they currently appear in both the Workflow steps and Quick Templates and again in the References section — and remove filler lines like 'Plan quality determines implementation success. Be comprehensive.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient using compact tables and bullets without lecturing Claude, but it repeats the same references in three places (Workflow, Quick Templates, and References) and includes filler lines such as 'Plan quality determines implementation success. Be comprehensive.' that could be trimmed; not quite the lean score-3 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete file-path conventions, a frontmatter schema, a required-sections checklist, and a shell command ('test -f docs/plan.md && cat docs/plan.md'), but the actual planning methodology is deferred to references that do not exist, leaving the core how-to guidance incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The technical workflow is a clear numbered sequence (Research & Analysis → Codebase Understanding → Solution Design → Plan Organization → Task Breakdown) with skip conditions, but there are no validation or verification checkpoints wired into the workflow, matching the score-2 anchor of steps present but checkpoints missing. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview is well sectioned and references are clearly signaled as one-level-deep, but all eight referenced files (research-phase.md, solution-design.md, the templates, etc.) are missing — no references/ bundle directory exists — so the navigation leads nowhere and the disclosure is not actually delivered. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |