Content
96%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 a lean, highly actionable protocol with a well-sequenced workflow and explicit validation feedback loops. The only gap is a referenced example file (examples/llm-replacement.md) that does not exist in the bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense, protocol-style prose that assumes Claude's competence — no padding explaining what baselines/ablations/experiments are — and every section (hard rules, workflow, spec, output contract) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Names concrete tools (research_validate, research_create, research_inspect, research_execute, research_continue, research_status, research_compare, research_evidence), provides a copy-paste-ready minimal Spec JSON, and enumerates exact Decision values, giving fully executable guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (research_validate, 执行前检查 returning a structured gap on missing conditions, no hot-polling) and a feedback loop via the INVALID/INCONCLUSIVE/UNSUPPORTED/SUPPORTED Decision enum; the batch-operation cap does not apply because validation is present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with a one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference ('相关示例见 examples/llm-replacement.md'), but that referenced example file is not present in the bundle, so navigation does not fully resolve. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |