Content
67%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 well-structured and largely actionable with concrete commands, YAML schemas, and clearly sequenced workflows for both modes. Main improvements are tightening redundant prose and providing executable templates for the verification methods.
Suggestions
Remove the Purpose section or fold it into the description, since it duplicates the frontmatter, and trim the Context Limitation / Differences sections to essentials.
Add a concrete eval case file template with frontmatter and a worked example for each verification method (grep-check, command-check, file-check, rule-check) so the agent can copy-paste rather than infer syntax.
Add an explicit error-recovery feedback loop in Run mode (e.g., on a spurious failure, re-run or inspect the target file) to push workflow clarity to a 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete commands and schemas, but the Purpose section restates the frontmatter description and the Context Limitation / Differences sections add length that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable install/compile commands and complete YAML output/trigger examples, but the verification methods (grep-check, command-check, etc.) are described conceptually rather than given as executable templates. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Both Run and Create modes are clearly numbered with sequenced sub-steps, precondition checks, result-to-expected comparison, and a gate decision; validation is present so the batch cap does not apply, though an explicit error-recovery loop is absent. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to references/workflow-example.md (verified to exist); core spec content is appropriately inlined in the overview. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |