Content
86%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 well-structured, concise, and action-oriented with strong progressive disclosure via a clear references table and a concrete inspector command. The main gap is minor indirectness in a couple of actionability details rather than any structural weakness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense, assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of what Three.js, Vite, or a base path is), and every line carries operational content with no padding or over-explanation. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete executable bash command with full arguments plus specific file paths and metric names, but a few invocations are indirect (the manifest checker is referenced via the director's 'evidence-manifest.md' format rather than a copy-paste command), leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered QA-pass and release-pass sequences with validation checkpoints (non-zero exits on blank-canvas/errors, state acknowledgement checks, re-run only after failures/changes) and feedback loops, though a couple of checkpoints are implicit rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A references table with a 'Read it when' column clearly signals three real, one-level-deep reference files plus the canvas-inspect script; the body is an overview pointing to those details with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |