Content
61%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 content is well-structured and actionable, with executable tool-call examples and a clear phased workflow. Its main weaknesses are redundancy between the Domain Reasoning and Reasoning Framework sections and the absence of explicit post-retrieval validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'Domain Reasoning' and 'Reasoning Framework' sections, which restate the same RefSeq/GenBank hierarchy and version-number guidance, to remove duplication and improve conciseness.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in Phase 2 — e.g., verify the retrieved accession's organism/strain matches the query before reporting — to strengthen workflow clarity for retrieval operations.
Validate the assumed response structure (result['data']['uids']) in the code example, or note the expected schema, so the guidance is fully copy-paste ready rather than relying on an assumed shape.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'Domain Reasoning' and 'Reasoning Framework' sections substantially overlap ('Prefer RefSeq over GenBank', 'Check version numbers' appear in both), which is unnecessary duplication that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly executable tool-call examples with parameters (NCBI_search_nucleotide, NCBI_get_sequence, ena_get_entry), decision trees, fallback chains, and an error-handling table, with only minor gaps such as assuming an unvalidated response structure (result['data']['uids']). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-phase sequence (Phase 0–3) is present with a workflow diagram and error handling, but verification checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit — there is no step validating that a retrieved sequence matches the expected organism/strain, which fits the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single self-contained file is well-organized with clear section headers and no buried or nested references, and the absence of bundle files is appropriate; minor organization gaps (the overlapping Domain Reasoning/Reasoning Framework sections) keep it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |