Content
82%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 tight, action-oriented architecture guardrail that avoids padding and bakes in a validation checkpoint. It could improve progressive-disclosure labeling and add an executable example command to nudge it to full marks.
Suggestions
Add one concrete example invocation of `scripts/lint-architecture-boundaries.sh` (and a representative regression-test name) so the guardrail step is copy-paste ready.
Make the deferred references explicit navigation, e.g. 'See [.apm/instructions/architecture.instructions.md](...) for the full centralization rule' and label the persona link as 'See the Python architect persona for...'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: terse bullet rules with no padding, no explanation of what design patterns or base classes are, and every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It names concrete anchors to follow (BaseIntegrator, CommandLogger, AuthResolver) and points to executable artifacts (lint-architecture-boundaries.sh, a regression test), but offers no copy-paste code or command invocation for the common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | It prescribes a clear sequence of decisions (follow existing patterns -> extend the canonical owner -> lock with dual guardrail) including an explicit validation check (lint script plus regression test), though it is rule-oriented rather than a numbered multi-step workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is clean with focused sections, and the deep rule is correctly deferred to a one-level-deep reference (`.apm/instructions/architecture.instructions.md`) plus a persona link, but references are plain paths rather than clearly labeled 'See X for Y' navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |