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.
A tight, well-structured research workflow with concrete tooling and a clear output contract. It is lean and actionable, with only minor gaps in feedback-loop explicitness and file-based content split.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/feedback checkpoint in the Collect evidence or Write contract phase (e.g., re-run truffler or rde-eval if the contract changes) to strengthen workflow_clarity.
Consider extracting the fill-in contract template into a references/ file and linking to it, improving progressive_disclosure now that the template is substantial.
Include one concrete example of a completed contract (pattern + false-positive trap) so the output shape is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient throughout: terse question lists, one concrete command, and a fill-in template with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste-ready truffler command and a concrete fill-in contract template, but most guidance is process direction rather than executable code, leaving minor gaps for a research skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear three-phase sequence (Define behavior -> Collect evidence -> Write contract) with conditional checkpoints ('Use truffler before proposing...', 'Use rde-eval when...'), but no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into three clear sections with the contract template inline; no bundle files exist so structure is self-contained, though the sizable inline template could justify a separate reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |