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 body is a tight, highly actionable set of path-safety coding rules with executable BAD/GOOD examples and a useful checklist. It is efficient and well-structured, with only minor redundancy and no explicit verification checkpoint.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step to the checklist (e.g. 'after adding a Loader, confirm it is absent from DATA_LOADERS when WORKSPACE_BACKEND != local') to close the validation gap for risky changes.
Consider trimming the ASCII '已有安全 API 的层次关系' diagram since its content is already conveyed by R4's prose and the checklist.
Make the 参考文档 entries into markdown links or note which section each cited doc elaborates, so the one-level-deep references are clearly signaled for navigation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean rule-based body with one-line rationales and minimal BAD/GOOD snippets that assumes Claude's competence; the ASCII '层次关系' diagram and the checklist table add minor redundancy that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every rule supplies copy-paste-ready BAD/GOOD Python using real APIs (ConfinedDir.resolve, send_file, _enforce_deployment_restrictions) plus concrete env-guard and registration steps, covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A 速查 checklist table routes scenarios to required actions and R5 gives a numbered registration sequence, providing clear checkpoints; minor gap is the absence of an explicit validate/verify step for newly added loaders or sandbox configs. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into six labeled rule sections plus a checklist and a one-level-deep 参考文档 list; no bundle files exist so all content is inlined, and references are plain repo paths rather than navigable progressive-disclosure bundles. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |