Content
80%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 body is a lean, well-structured rules digest with concrete, executable specifics and explicit validation hooks for its batch/destructive obligations. Its main weakness is that the actual validate→fix→retry feedback loop is delegated to an external skill rather than inlined.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense rule-list format with tables that assumes Claude's competence and explains no background concepts; time-sensitive dates are load-bearing operator decisions and staleness is explicitly quarantined in a Known-Stale section, so no token is wasted. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable specifics (exact forbidden URLs, exact icon-shortcode syntax, correct/wrong emphasis examples, redirect patterns), but enforcement leans on 'report back' rather than fix and delegates verification to an external skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each HARD rule states a clear obligation with its validation hook (locale-parity must_pass threshold, exit-gate verify recipe), giving clear sequencing for batch/destructive 4-locale edits; minor gaps because the validate→fix→retry loop itself lives in the referenced verify skill rather than inlined here. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized numbered sections in a single file with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (SSOT doc and the verify skill); no nested or buried references, though the SSOT override relationship could be flagged even more crisply. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |