Content
81%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, hardened instruction body: unambiguous token-replacement workflow with strict validation, security-conscious escaping rules, and explicit pass/fail gates with feedback loops. The main weakness is redundancy — the token list, P0 gates, and P1 gates each appear twice within the body and again in checklist.md, inflating token cost without adding guidance.
Suggestions
Remove the full P0/P1 gate lists from the 'Quality gates' section and defer to references/checklist.md with a one-line 'Run every P0 gate in references/checklist.md before emitting' pointer, keeping only gates unique to the body (e.g., token grammar).
Merge steps 2 and 3: state each color token once with its CSS variable target (e.g., '--bg = {{BG_EXPRESSION}} (e.g., #FDE8DF)') instead of enumerating all 13 tokens twice.
Collapse the duplicated 'Output' sections (lines ~170 and ~211) into a single emit section that includes the artifact wrapper and post-emission iteration rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept explanations) but is padded with duplication: all 13 color tokens are enumerated in step 2 and then re-listed as CSS variables in step 3, and the full P0/P1 gate lists appear twice ('Validation: Run hardened quality gates' and 'Quality gates'), duplicating references/checklist.md. This matches 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than 4 ('only minor instances of over-explanation') given the scale of the repetition. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: exact token names ({{BG_EXPRESSION}}, {{LOGO_MARK}}), precise escaping and sanitization rules (strip script, on*, foreignObject, external refs), an explicit color grammar with hard-rejected characters (';', '{}', '<', '>', '/*', '@', 'url('), concrete CSS variable mappings (--bg, --fg, --accent...), and exact viewport checks (375×667, 390×844). This matches the 'copy-paste ready, covers common cases' anchor; not 4 because there are no meaningful gaps in specificity. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 0–7 sequence (load DESIGN.md → copy template → token replacement → verify mapping → responsive check → P0/P1 validation → emit) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: 'If any P0 gate fails, ask the user or fix the token mappings and try again' and post-emission re-validation on iterations. Matches the top anchor with checklist-driven checkpoints; not 4 because validation and error-recovery loops are explicit throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Both referenced bundle files exist and are one level deep with clear signals ('Read assets/template.html', 'Read references/checklist.md'), and the template is correctly kept out of the body. Falls short of 5 because the body inlines the complete P0/P1 gate enumeration that already lives in references/checklist.md, so content that should be separate is duplicated inline — a minor organization gap matching 'good structure; most content appropriately placed'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |