Content
67%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 content is a well-structured, highly actionable workflow with clear sequencing and concrete bash throughout; its main weakness is repeated boilerplate that could be factored out and a long inlined template that could be split into a reference.
Suggestions
Factor the repeated SLUG/DESIGNS_DIR and BRANCH/DATETIME setup into a single defined snippet and reference it from each step to remove the ~5 duplications.
Resolve the SUPERSEDES linkage so Step 1's heredoc does not reference a variable that is only set in Step 3, or reorder/scope the steps so the variable is defined before use.
Move the ~50-line document template into a references/ file (e.g. references/TEMPLATE.md) and link to it from the body to improve progressive disclosure and trim the main file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly concrete code with no conceptual fluff, but the SLUG/DESIGNS_DIR setup block is duplicated ~5 times, the BRANCH/DATETIME resolution repeats, and the immutability rule is stated three times. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready bash for save, search, chain-walking, and cap enforcement, with a minor gap: SUPERSEDES is referenced in the Step 1 heredoc but only assigned in Step 3, and template placeholders must be filled by the model. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-4 are clearly numbered and sequenced with a discover-before-save flow, a user confirmation prompt, and a cap warning, but there is no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop and errors are suppressed via 2>/dev/null. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single-file body is well-organized with clear section headers and no nested references, but at ~280 lines the sizable document template is a candidate for a separate reference file rather than being inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |