Content
88%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 well-structured, highly actionable workflow with concrete JSON examples, explicit checkpoints, and a thorough error-handling table. The main weakness is repetition of the surface-availability and importantNote caveats across multiple sections, which could be consolidated.
Suggestions
Consolidate the surface-availability guidance (currently repeated in the surface note, Step 1, Step 3, Step 4 sections, and Constraints) into a single authoritative statement to reduce token cost.
State the importantNote precedence rule once and reference it by name from Step 3 and Step 4 rather than re-explaining the fallback behavior in each edit subsection.
Consider extracting the per-surface presentation fallbacks (gallery vs. text-only markdown links) into a short references file so the main workflow stays lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean JSON payloads and no concept padding, but the surface-availability and importantNote caveats are repeated across the surface note, Step 1, Step 3, Step 4, and Constraints — minor tightening possible. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready JSON examples for every tool call, a query-mapping table, and an error-handling table with specific per-situation actions fully cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints (tool-availability check, templateURN gate before edits), feedback loops (retry once on fill_text, broader query on no matches), and an error-handling checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file with well-organized sections and tables; no references/scripts bundles exist (only icon assets). Structure is good but the file exceeds 50 lines with no one-level-deep reference split to reward. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |