Content
80%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is lean, highly actionable, and well-sequenced with concrete commands throughout. Its main gaps are missing explicit validation checkpoints before destructive operations and no use of progressive disclosure to split the longer sections into reference files.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints before destructive cleanup, e.g. verify the PR is merged and CI is green before running 'git push origin --delete' or 'git worktree remove'.
Split the substantial Worktrees and Multi-Repo sections into one-level-deep reference files (e.g. WORKTREES.md, MULTI-REPO.md) with signaled links from the main workflow overview.
Add a brief verify/retry feedback loop for the publish steps (e.g. confirm the --tag preview publish succeeded) to strengthen workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is command-dense with tables and code blocks, assumes git competence without explaining basics, and its rare rationale prose (e.g. merge=union reasoning) earns its place rather than padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides fully executable git/gh commands with concrete examples (e.g. 'git worktree add ../squad-195 -b squad/195-fix-stamp-bug origin/dev') and clearly marked placeholders, making guidance copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly numbered and sequenced with preconditions, but destructive cleanup operations (remote branch deletion, worktree removal) lack explicit verify/validate checkpoints or feedback loops, capping the score at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clear sections (avoiding a wall of text) but lives in a single ~200-line file with no external references, and substantial sections (Worktrees, Multi-Repo) remain inline that could be split into reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |