Content
82%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 content is highly actionable with executable validation commands and concrete paths, and it structures references one level deep, but it relies on prose rather than headers/checklists and repeats the publication rules.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes domain competence without explaining basics, but the reviewed-projection/publication rules are restated in two places, a minor redundancy that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready validation commands with real paths and flags, concrete env vars (PAPERCLIP_ROOT, PAPERCLIP_EVALS_ROOT), and specific authoring requirements, covering the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present with an explicit validation checkpoint ('Validate without provider calls first using the commands above'), but it is prose rather than a numbered checklist and lacks an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; references to external docs (doc/evals.md, runner-protocol-live-evals.md, sibling evals repo) are one level deep and clearly signaled, with content appropriately kept in one file, though section headers would improve navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |