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 highly actionable, well-structured body with concrete code and clear phases. Consolidating overlapping reasoning sections and moving reference tables into bundled files would improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Merge 'Domain Reasoning' and 'Reasoning Framework' into a single concise section to remove overlapping content and save tokens.
Move the 'Tool Reference', 'Search Parameters Reference', and 'Curation Level Tiers' tables into separate bundle files (e.g., references/tools.md) referenced one level deep from the body.
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint in Phase 2 (e.g., confirm retrieved accession/version before reporting) to strengthen the feedback loop for retrieval operations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and table-driven with minimal conceptual padding, assuming Claude's competence; the 'Domain Reasoning' and 'Reasoning Framework' sections partially overlap and could be consolidated for tighter token efficiency. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready Python snippets with real tool names and parameters, plus parameter references, fallback chains, and an error-handling table covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear four-phase sequence with decision trees, identity checklist, and report checklist, but recovery relies on fallback chains and an error table rather than an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers, but at ~140 lines it inlines reference material (tool reference, search parameters, curation tiers) that could be split into separate bundle files; no external references are used. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |