Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is lean, highly actionable, and well-structured with appropriate progressive disclosure to real bundle files. The only gap is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints within the workflow sequence, which keeps workflow_clarity at 2.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the Workflow (e.g., after audience research, confirm segments are non-obvious; before handoff, verify each territory has a rejection criterion) so the sequence carries its own quality gates.
Cross-reference the 'Failure patterns' items into the relevant workflow steps so the anti-patterns act as inline checkpoints rather than a separate section.
Consider a short 'Definition of done' checklist for the discovery report to make the handoff gate explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a dense, directive framework that assumes Claude's competence — it never explains basic concepts (what a brand/competitor is) and every section earns its tokens with actionable structure rather than padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and specific despite being code-free: per-competitor fields, per-territory fields, named sources, and exact counts ('5 to 8 interviews', '3 to 8 competitors', '3 to 5 territories'), meeting the actionable-instruction standard. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step Workflow is clearly sequenced but lacks explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops between steps; the separate 'Failure patterns' section serves as an anti-pattern list rather than integrated step-level checkpoints. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview that links two real, one-level-deep reference files (discovery-report-template.md, interview-guide.md), each clearly signaled in both the Workflow and a dedicated 'Reference files' section. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |