Content
86%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 an efficient, highly actionable overview with the right progressive-disclosure shape for its reference files. Its two real weaknesses are the broken evals/ links and the lack of an explicitly sequenced daily workflow with a validation checkpoint before apply.
Suggestions
Remove the Eval Scenarios section or create the evals/scenario-01.md through scenario-03.md files — currently all three links point to a nonexistent directory.
Convert the Daily Workflow table into a short numbered sequence that makes "chezmoi diff" an explicit validation checkpoint before "chezmoi apply", mirroring the Troubleshooting Workflow's style.
Trim the template-variable block (it duplicates references/templates.md) down to one or two illustrative variables plus the reference link.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and lean — tables of commands and attribute effects, short template snippets, and a genuinely non-obvious mental model section — with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; it does not fall to the 4 anchor since nothing meaningful is over-explained. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Nearly everything is copy-paste executable: a command table, a bootstrap one-liner ("chezmoi init --apply $GITHUB_USERNAME"), runnable template snippets, a template-debugging command, and concrete alternatives in the anti-patterns ("use `chezmoi chattr` instead"). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Troubleshooting Workflow is a well-ordered diagnostic sequence (doctor → diff → status → cat → data), but the primary add→apply loop is presented as a lookup table where the 'diff before apply' validation is implied rather than an explicit checkpoint step, so it sits between the 4 and 5 anchors. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are one level deep and clearly labeled with key content inline and full detail in existing reference files, but the Eval Scenarios section links to evals/scenario-01.md through scenario-03.md, none of which exist in the bundle — half the referenced paths are broken, which is a navigation failure beyond the 'minor organization gaps' of the 4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |