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 well-structured, highly actionable clinical classification workflow with concrete tool calls, thresholds, and a combination algorithm. It is efficient and clearly sequenced, with only minor conciseness and feedback-loop gaps.
Suggestions
Trim framing prose such as 'The reasoning is:' and the 'LOOK UP, DON'T GUESS' section to tighten conciseness.
Add an explicit validate→fix→re-validate feedback loop in Phase 0 for when variant validation fails.
Consider moving the Tool Parameter Reference table into a references/ file and linking to it from the body to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes competence, providing specialized thresholds (REVEL >= 0.7, mis_z > 3.09, LOEUF < 0.35) Claude would not reliably know; minor explanatory prose like 'The reasoning is:' and 'LOOK UP, DON'T GUESS' could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable tool calls with exact parameters throughout (e.g. VariantValidator_validate_variant(variant_description=..., genome_build=..., select_transcripts=...)), a complete tool parameter table, and a copy-paste output template covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Phase 0–6 sequence with an explicit validation gate ('Validate first') and a combination-rule checklist, but no spelled-out validate→fix→retry feedback loop for failed validation; the task is read-only analysis so the destructive-cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references and content appropriately inline for a decision procedure; the ~244-line monolithic body with no external reference files could potentially split the tool table or criteria detail, preventing a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |