Content
72%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 an efficient, well-structured overview that defers detail to six real, clearly-signaled reference files, with strong actionable specifics (paths, commands, API gotchas). Its main weakness is workflow validation: the add-a-screen and add-state procedures lack verification steps, and no in-body code example shows a complete screen implementation.
Suggestions
Add a validation step to the 'Adding a screen' and 'Adding store state' workflows (e.g. 'Run the wizard with pnpm try and confirm the new screen renders before moving on'), since neither currently has a verification checkpoint.
Include one minimal executable screen component example in the body (or a short snippet in ARCHITECTURE.md) so the most common task — writing a new screen — has copy-paste-ready code.
Trim the Ink adoption paragraph ('used by Claude Code, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot CLI...') and the browser↔Ink comparison rows Claude can derive, keeping only the non-obvious mappings.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and project-specific — file paths, enum locations, step lists, a browser↔Ink mapping table — with almost no filler. Not 5: the adoption pitch ("Ink is the dominant Node.js TUI framework — used by Claude Code, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot CLI...") is justification Claude doesn't need, and parts of the rendering-model section restate documented Ink behavior. Not 3: only minor trimming is needed; the bulk is non-derivable project knowledge. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact paths (`src/ui/tui/router.ts`), commands (`pnpm try --playground`, `--ci` flag), API specifics (`useStdout().stdout.columns`, `!process.stdin.isTTY`, `color="#000000"` not `color="black"`), and a numbered 'Adding a screen' procedure. Not 5: there is no actual code example in the body — all code is deferred to reference files — so a copy-paste-ready example for the most common task (building a screen) is missing. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Adding a screen' and 'Adding store state' workflows are clearly sequenced (numbered steps, 'No other files change', explicit two-pattern split), but validation checkpoints are absent or only implicit — there is no step to run/verify the wizard after adding a screen or state field. This matches 'steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit'; not 4 because no explicit verification step exists in either workflow. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview body with six well-signaled, one-level-deep references (all six files verified present in references/), each annotated with what it contains and when to read it ("Read this first when working on screen flow or state"), plus a closing reference index. No reference file nests further references, so navigation is easy and content is appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |