Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly actionable with a clear, validated workflow and a precise output contract, but it is a single self-contained file whose large inline examples and repeated approval-gate rule leave room for token savings and progressive disclosure via reference files.
Suggestions
Move the full output-contract JSON example and the good/bad justification examples into a references file (e.g. references/output-contract.md) and link to it from the body to improve progressive disclosure.
Consolidate the repeated 'ask the developer for approval before editing source' rule into a single stated policy referenced once, instead of restating it in Workflow, Hint Rules, and Tool Descriptor/CSP Rules.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and is mostly lean directive prose, but the 'ask the developer for approval before editing source' rule recurs across Workflow, Hint Rules, and Tool Descriptor/CSP Rules and could be consolidated. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a complete executable output contract JSON, an exact category enum, the exact warning text and URL, and precise counts (five positive, three negative test cases), giving copy-paste-ready guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered 1–8 workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (compare annotations vs. behavior) and a stop-and-ask approval feedback loop when hints mismatch, matching the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is well-organized into clearly labeled sections with no nested references, but it is a single monolithic document with a large inline JSON output contract and justification examples that could be split into reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |