Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with a clear, well-validated multi-step workflow, but it is a monolithic single file with some redundancy between the cleanup red-flags and the exclusion tables. Splitting reference material out and de-duplicating would improve token efficiency and navigation.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the cleanup red-flags: keep the exclusion tables in one place and reference them from Phase 1 rather than restating the same patterns in both sections.
Move the project-specific test-failure patterns and the root-level test-script filename table into a reference file (e.g. references/TROUBLESHOOTING.md) and link to it from the main workflow to reduce inline token load.
Replace the hard-coded list of example test_*.py filenames with the matching pattern alone, since the specific names will drift as the project evolves.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with executable commands and no concept-explanation padding, but the red-flags in Phase 1 are restated in the "Files That Must NEVER Be Pushed" section, and the hard-coded test-script filename table is project-specific detail that could drift. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Fully executable bash/git commands throughout (e.g. `git push --force-with-lease`, `pytest tests/ -x --tb=short -q`), with copy-paste-ready snippets and specific examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear four-phase numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (git status, hook verification, test run, PR mergeability check) and a feedback loop (test fail → diagnose via error patterns → fix). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into sections but everything is inline in a single ~240-line file with no bundle files; the test-failure patterns and file-exclusion tables could be split into referenced materials for easier navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |