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 content is a tightly structured, validation-aware orchestration workflow that assumes Claude's competence and gives concrete tool and file references. The main gap is the unspecified sub-agent spawning mechanism.
Suggestions
Show the actual mechanism for spawning sub-agents (e.g., the Agent tool invocation or a reusable prompt skeleton) so the 'spawn a dedicated sub-agent' step is executable.
Consolidate the repeated per-phase sub-agent instruction bullets into a single shared template to remove structural redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and instruction-oriented with no concept-explanation padding, but the per-phase sub-agent instruction lists carry some structural redundancy that could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tools, file names, and status states are specified (browser_navigate, PLAN.md, debug.log), but 'spawn a dedicated sub-agent' never gives the actual spawn mechanism or invocation detail. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-phase sequence with explicit validation checkpoints, feedback loops ('Iterate until all acceptance criteria'), and a progress-tracking checklist; the batch/destructive cap does not apply because validation is present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files are needed; the single self-contained file is well-sectioned with nothing that clearly belongs in a separate reference, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |