Content
65%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 compact, well-organized spec that clearly defines inputs, outputs, and completion semantics. Its weaknesses are the missing executable steps for producing the diff artifacts and the absence of verification around the destructive rollback.
Suggestions
Add the concrete command(s) for producing the artifacts, e.g. `git diff > review/diff.patch`, so the generation step is executable rather than implied.
Add an explicit post-rollback verification step (e.g., confirm the working tree matches the pre-patch state or that only files in plan/steps.json files[] were touched) to close the loop on the destructive `git restore`.
Trim the rhetorical opener ('a code-migration / tune-collab handoff is worthless without a human-reviewable diff') to a one-line purpose statement.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean spec with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; only the rhetorical opener ('a code-migration / tune-collab handoff is worthless without a human-reviewable diff') and the 'present the patch, capture the decision' gloss are trimmable. Anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances... that could be trimmed'), not 5, because those two flourishes don't earn their tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete artifacts and schemas are specified (the review/ output tree, decision.json's fields, `git restore`) and implementation paths are given, but the actual executable steps — how to generate diff.patch and summary.md — are never stated. Anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'), not 4, because a core step has no command or code. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear across sections (render diff → raise surface → capture decision → write manifest or rollback) with an explicit completion criterion, but the destructive `git restore` rollback has a stated boundary contract and no verification loop after it — the judging guidelines cap workflow clarity at 3 for destructive operations without validation. Not 4 because no post-rollback check exists. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines, no bundle files exist to reference, and it is organized into clean single-purpose sections (Inputs, Output, Convergence, Anti-patterns, Status). Per the simple-skill exception, well-organized sections alone merit 5; no nested or buried references exist. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |