Content
88%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 lean, fail-closed rule spec: a gated activation card, numbered assembly steps with an exact footer, concrete per-environment write commands, and explicit hard nos. The only gaps are minor actionability details (the body-file path and PATCH body parameters) and the absence of any reference structure.
Suggestions
Complete the write commands: specify how the body file is created (e.g., write to a temp file with the ASCII-only assembled body) and show the full PATCH invocation including the request body parameter (e.g., gh api -X PATCH ... -f body=@file).
Clarify the Agentic Workflow path with the same concreteness as the actor-session path — e.g., the exact safe-outputs.add-comment payload shape and what to do when the platform rejects it, instead of only 'stop'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is pure imperative rules with zero concept explanation ('One comment per activation. No progress comments.', 'ASCII only.') and assumes Claude's competence. The repetition of the assign/label/merge prohibition between card rules and 'Hard nos' is deliberate fail-closed enforcement, not padding, so it fits the 5 anchor rather than 4's 'could be trimmed'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete commands ('gh issue comment <target> --body-file ...', 'gh api -X PATCH /repos/microsoft/apm/issues/comments/<comment_id>') and an exact copy-paste footer, but the --body-file target is an ellipsis and the PATCH request body is unspecified, so it is not fully copy-paste ready — anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (emit activation card → assemble → write → exit receipt) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Missing field -> stop', 'Mismatch -> stop', footer dedup check). This is a single unambiguous write of one comment, not a batch or destructive operation, so the simple-skill exception applies and 5 fits. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections (Activation card, Assemble, Write, Hard nos) are well organized and everything is appropriately inline for a compact rule spec, but no bundle files exist and the ~100-line body exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill line, so it matches anchor 4's 'good structure, minor organization gaps' rather than 5's well-signaled references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |