Content
61%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 concise and reasonably organized with concrete output paths, but its testing workflow lacks executable detail and validation checkpoints. Strengthening the verify loop and specifying how to run/evaluate temp files would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Specify how to create and run the temp Python files (e.g., `python tmp_check.py` and what output to look for) instead of 'check the logics you are thinking'.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint before deleting temp files (e.g., 'Confirm the script exits 0 and output matches expectations, then delete').
Give a concrete example of documenting assumptions and comparing approaches in the research .md so the deliverable is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; only minor awkward phrasing ('check the logics you are thinking') could be trimmed, keeping it just below the fully lean 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete paths (`.cursor/plans/{plan_name_folder}/research` as a `.md`) but the testing guidance ('check the logics you are thinking on the root folder') is vague and missing key execution details, fitting the incomplete 3 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'You must' list plus sections provide a rough sequence, but there are no validation checkpoints and the create/delete-temp-files step is unverified; the rubric caps such batch/file operations at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files, organized into labeled sections ('Python test validations', 'Document base'); good structure with minor organization gaps rather than the fully clean 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |