Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews 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-signaled pointer to a verified reference file with concrete tool/path guidance, so conciseness, actionability, and progressive disclosure are strong. The only gap is that the multi-step workflow and its validation checkpoints are not present in the body itself.
Suggestions
Add a one-line sequenced summary of the five gates (peer-sketched → criterion-audited → bearer-assented → peer-unvetoed → operator-confirmed) so the body conveys workflow order without inlining the full reference.
Mention the key validation checkpoint inline (e.g. 'a name is pending, not settled, until operator confirm') so destructive/premature landings are guarded against even before the reference is read.
Trim the anecdotal 'aesop near-miss vs. Ada' aside or move it into the reference, since it is color rather than actionable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~6-line body delegates the full ritual to a reference instead of inlining it, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives a concrete, executable instruction naming a specific tool and path ("use the `view_file` tool to read and strictly adhere to .../peer-naming-workflow.md before sketching, choosing, vetoing, or confirming"). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-gate sequence and validation checkpoints reside in the referenced file, not the body; the body only enumerates the verbs (sketching/choosing/vetoing/confirming) without sequencing or checkpoints. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview that points to one well-signaled, one-level-deep reference (verified to exist and be self-contained), with content appropriately split for easy navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |