Content
57%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 highly actionable with concrete gh commands, exact templates, and clear per-scenario branching, but it pays for that with heavy duplication (the notice repeated six times, redundant Principles/Notes sections), no validation checkpoints around its destructive edits, and an all-in-one-file structure that inlines content better kept in references.
Suggestions
Define the code-of-conduct notice once (e.g., in a short 'Notice template' section or a references/notice.md file) and instruct that it be used verbatim, instead of repeating the full text six times across the title, body, and comment scenarios.
Add a validation step after destructive edits — e.g., re-fetch the issue/comment with `gh issue view` / `gh api` to confirm the sanitized content applied before posting the notice and reporting success — to satisfy the feedback-loop requirement for destructive batch operations.
Move the violation-criteria list and the notice/report templates into a references/ file (one level deep, clearly signaled from the body) to cut duplication and bring the body closer to a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is noticeably padded: the exact same code-of-conduct notice is reproduced in full six times (a markdown block plus a bash implementation block in each of the title, body, and comment scenarios), and the 'Important Principles' and 'Notes' sections restate title-replacement and exact-notice guidance already given inline ('Title violations trigger the same notice', 'Title replacement logic'). This matches 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' rather than the mostly-efficient level-3 anchor. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable and copy-paste ready: concrete commands ('gh issue view $1 --repo $0 --comments --json comments', 'gh issue edit $1 --repo $0 --title ...', 'gh api --method PATCH /repos/$0/issues/comments/{comment-id} -f body=...'), the verbatim notice text, a worked title-replacement example, and exact report templates — covering the common cases per the level-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clearly laid out (fetch comments → evaluate title/body/comments → branch to the matching action → summary report) with a borderline-content rule, but the workflow performs destructive, batch-style edits (in-place rewriting of issue titles, bodies, and comments) with no validation or verification steps — no re-fetch to confirm an edit applied, no preview before overwrite. The rubric's cap for destructive/batch operations without validation limits this to 3 despite the otherwise clear branching. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and navigable, but the ~215-line body is entirely monolithic — no bundle files exist, and content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined (the repeated notice template and the violation-criteria list could each live in a references/ file). This matches 'some structure... content that should be separate is inline' rather than the level-4 anchor, and the under-50-line exception does not apply. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |