Content
90%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 workflow is lean, fully executable, and well-checkpointed, with explicit stop conditions and label/template validation. The only gaps are the absence of error-recovery guidance for failed commands and the inlining of fairly detailed template-selection policy that could be split into a reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense operational instruction — bash snippets, ordered selection rules, and explicit stop conditions — with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every step earns its tokens, matching the lean anchor 5 rather than the minor-trim anchor 4. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable commands throughout: `gh pr list --head "${branch}"…`, `git push -u "${remote}" "${branch}:${branch}"`, `gh label list`, and the complete `gh pr create --draft --assignee @me …` invocation. Placeholders appear only where content is inherently dynamic (title, generated body), matching the copy-paste-ready anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (default-branch stop, existing-PR check, label validation, unfilled-template blocker). It falls short of anchor 5 only because there are no error-recovery loops for command failures (e.g., push or `gh pr create` failing), landing at anchor 4's "minor validation gaps". | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the body is self-contained with clear section headers and hierarchical sub-steps (4a, 6a, 6b) for easy navigation. At ~135 lines, the detailed template detection/selection policy could arguably live in a reference file, so it matches anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than the well-split anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |