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 actionable, well-sequenced PR-submission workflow with concrete commands throughout and good validation ordering; its only gaps are minor justificatory prose and the absence of an explicit error-recovery feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with concrete commands, but phrases like 'while corrections are still cheap' and 'no separate pass is needed here' are minor justifications that could be trimmed — matching the score-4 anchor rather than a clean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every step gives copy-paste-ready, executable commands (`git status`, `git diff`, `git log --oneline -10`, `gh pr create`, `-u`, `git log main..HEAD`), fully covering the common PR-submission case per the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six numbered steps are clearly sequenced with checkpoints (inspect state first, prose-review before pushing, post-PR steps gated on creation), but there is no explicit error-feedback loop for recovery, so it sits at 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external bundle files needed, and well-organized into a clear ## Instructions section — the rubric's simple-skill exception permits a 5 here. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |