Content
78%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 strong, information-dense routing skill: it disambiguates first, maps every common ask to a concrete protection layer with exact dashboard paths, plan gating, role permissions, and a runnable SSO-session-refresh snippet, and it properly offloads the two-layer deep-dive to a real reference file. Its main weakness is redundancy — the merged house-rules section duplicates roughly 40% of the body with added meta-commentary, which hurts token efficiency.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the trailing 'Netlify house rules' section: rules 3-5, 7, 9, and 10 restate the auth disambiguation, no-API constraint, internal-app decision, Reviewer remedy, and who-can-change guidance already in the body — keep only rules that add new information, or move the rationale into references/two-layer-pattern.md.
Isolate time-sensitive facts (the 'July 28, 2026' default-visibility cutover and the per-plan gating matrix) into a clearly labeled section or the references file so the routing core stays lean and stale dates are easy to spot.
Trim meta-commentary ('it has happened', 'this rule exists to prevent', 'don't burn iterations') to bare directives — the operative instruction survives without the narrative.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The routing core (disambiguation, decision guide, UI paths, constraints) is dense with non-obvious product facts and assumes Claude's competence, but the trailing 'Netlify house rules' section (~60 lines) restates the disambiguation, double-login, no-API, internal-app, Reviewer, and who-can-change guidance already covered above, padded with meta-commentary ('it has happened', 'this rule exists to prevent', 'don't burn iterations'). Date-sensitive facts (the 'July 28, 2026' default-visibility cutover) are inlined rather than isolated, which also counts against efficiency. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every recommendation comes with executable specifics: exact dashboard deep-links (e.g. 'https://app.netlify.com/projects/{site_name}/configuration/general/#project-visibility'), step-by-step UI navigation sequences, a copy-paste-ready JS snippet reading the 'Netlify-Site-Protection-Expires-In' header, exact role names (Reviewers vs Git Contributors vs Internal Builders), and per-plan gating for each option. The decision guide maps each user ask to a concrete layer choice, and the failure directive ('report what you tried and stop') is explicit. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clearly signaled — 'First: disambiguate "auth"', then the decision guide, then UI paths, with a failure-handling directive up front ('On failure, report what you tried and stop') and a symptom-driven diagnostic flow for the 401-after-an-hour case. It falls short of 5 only because the routing steps are organized topically rather than as an explicit ordered procedure with checkpoints for the handoff. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The one deep topic (the combined Password-Protection + Identity pattern) is correctly split into references/two-layer-pattern.md, which exists and is clearly signaled twice in the body ('For the combined layered pattern and its tradeoffs, see references/two-layer-pattern.md'). The reference is one level deep with no nesting, and the body's section headers make navigation easy. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |