Content
77%Reviews 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 and well-sequenced with strong validation feedback loops, the rubric's most-valued qualities. It loses points mainly on conciseness (duplicated detection blocks and repeated boilerplate) and on progressive disclosure (a header-less monolithic list over 50 lines).
Suggestions
Merge the formatter (step 3) and linter (step 4) detection snippets into a single per-language table or block to remove the near-duplicate Node/Rust/Python/Go listings.
De-duplicate the "fresh pair of eyes / you do NOT have to follow suggestions" note shared by steps 6 and 7 — state it once and reference it.
Add section headers (e.g. ## Verify, ## Clean up, ## Review, ## Ship) over the numbered steps to improve navigation across the 110-line body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient command-driven steps, but the formatter (step 3) and linter (step 4) detection blocks are near-duplicates across Node/Rust/Python/Go, and the "fresh pair of eyes" note is repeated verbatim in steps 6 and 7 — both could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands ("npm test / cargo test / pytest", "cargo clippy --fix --allow-dirty --allow-staged", "ruff check --fix .", "gh pr create …") including a complete PR body template — copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly numbered 12-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: tests-fail halt ("Cannot proceed until tests pass"), CI failure recovery with "go back to step 10", and a main-branch push guard. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | At ~110 lines it exceeds the simple-skill threshold and is a monolithic numbered list with no section headers and no external references; the step numbering gives some structure but navigation and content splitting could be improved. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |