Content
85%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 a highly actionable, well-sequenced orchestration workflow with strong validation gates and error-recovery loops — actionability and workflow clarity are excellent. Its main weaknesses are moderate prompt duplication between the inline phases and references/worker-prompts.md, and a redundant quick-reference table, which hurt both conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Remove the full inline worker-prompt blocks from Phases 2, 5, and 6 and reference the versions in references/worker-prompts.md (or keep only a one-line summary inline), eliminating the duplication.
Drop the Quick Reference table or fold it into the workflow diagram at the top, since it restates commands already shown per phase.
Trim the Phase 2.5 example block to a single representative bd search call, since the step list above it already covers the variations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with commands, prompt blocks, and templates rather than concept explanations, assuming Claude's competence throughout. Minor tightening is possible: the Quick Reference table repeats phase-level Beads commands already given, and Phase 2.5's example block partly restates its own steps — noticeable but not to the level of anchor 3's 'several unnecessary explanations'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Nearly everything is copy-paste ready: exact bash commands ('bd mol wisp healthcheck', 'bd create "BUG: {bug_title}" -t bug -p {1|2} --deps discovered-from:{wisp_id}'), a full TodoWrite JSON array, complete Task-tool prompt blocks, and a ready-to-render summary template. Placeholders are appropriately parameterized for a workflow, matching the anchor-5 'copy-paste ready' standard. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases are explicitly sequenced with a workflow diagram, an iteration cap ('Max iterations: 3'), validation checkpoints before and after each fixing priority ('pnpm type-check / pnpm build — if FAIL → suggest rollback, exit'), a verification feedback loop that re-runs detection and decides iterate-vs-complete, and a dedicated Error Handling section with rollback steps — matching the anchor-5 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery' standard for batch code-modifying operations. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body does point to a real one-level-deep bundle file ('See references/worker-prompts.md for detailed prompts'), but the full inline prompt blocks in Phases 2, 5, and 6 substantially duplicate the content of that reference file, i.e. content that clearly belongs in the separate file is inlined. This matches anchor 3 ('content that should be separate is inline') better than anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |