Content
68%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 highly actionable with executable commands and a sound connection workflow, but it lacks validation/feedback loops for destructive and batch operations and carries some expendable prose.
Suggestions
Add a verification step after proxy or action calls, e.g. check the response status field and retry/re-report on non-2xx, to satisfy the destructive/batch validation cap.
Trim filler prose ('so you can focus on the integration logic...', 'Use action names and parameters as needed') and merge the redundant 'Searching for actions' and 'Popular actions' examples.
Add a brief feedback loop for CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED re-auth: after the user completes the action, re-poll and confirm READY before proceeding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete commands, but padded prose ('so you can focus on the integration logic rather than auth plumbing'), a redundant action-list example, and filler ('Use action names and parameters as needed') could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready bash commands for install, login, connection, action search/run, and proxying, plus a complete flag table covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear install->auth->connect->search->run sequence with connection-state branching and polling, but no validation/verification steps despite destructive proxy methods (DELETE/PATCH) and batch action runs, which caps this at 3 per the guideline. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections with flat, navigable structure and no nested references; minor organization gaps (e.g. overlapping 'Searching for actions' and 'Popular actions') keep it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |