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 tight, well-sequenced workflow with executable commands, an evidence-based report structure, and explicit validation loops. It assumes Claude's competence and avoids padding; the only soft spot is a couple of high-level steps that lack executable specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient throughout — it never explains React or tracing basics Claude already knows, and every section (interpretation rules, report template, validation steps) earns its tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands (npx react-doctor scan, CDP invocation) and a concrete report template, but a few steps like 'Search the repository' and 'Open the DevTools trace' remain high-level rather than executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-phase sequence (define → record → read → connect → report → validate) with an explicit ordered checklist for reading the report and a feedback loop in the 'Validate a fix' section (rebuild, re-record, 3 before/3 after samples, compare medians). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers and no nested references, and appropriately self-contained with no bundle files; minor gap is that the interpretation rules or report template could optionally live in a reference file to keep the overview shorter. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |