Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-structured, and provides a clear sequenced workflow with validation, but the audit-check and search guidance is described rather than given as concrete, executable commands.
Suggestions
Add concrete executable search commands for the audit steps, e.g., a Grep example for hardcoded user-facing strings in app/business code.
Provide a brief example of the placeholder/escaping comparison command or a concrete diff-style check between default and locale resources.
Show a minimal pass/fail table template so the output structure is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with short, well-organized sections and no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete validation command and specific file paths to read, but core audit actions like 'Search the touched area for hardcoded user-facing strings' are described rather than given as executable grep commands, leaving key details missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Process is a clear 4-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint and conditional recovery ('If unavailable, state resource-risk remaining'), matching the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and well-organized sections; the external doc references (AGENTS.md, docs/ai/playbooks/i18n-resources.md) are one level deep and clearly signaled under 'Read first'. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |