Content
81%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.
A well-structured, actionable workflow with strong sequencing and validation checkpoints tailored to high-risk work. Conciseness and progressive disclosure are good but not maximal, given dense prose and the absence of any split-out reference material.
Suggestions
Tighten a few compound sentences in 'Workflow' and 'Cost and latency principles' (e.g., the long principal-advisor mode paragraph) to lift conciseness toward 5.
Add one concrete Task-tool invocation example showing the blocking-vs-background launch to make actionability copy-paste ready.
Consider extracting the context-packet template into a referenced file or a tighter fenced block so the core workflow reads leaner.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and information-rich, assuming Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, though a few compound sentences could be tightened without losing meaning. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a literal context-packet template, a triage taxonomy with explicit routing, an advisor table with default consult counts, and concrete rules ('stash your diff and re-run'); absent exact Task-tool invocation syntax is the main gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced six-step workflow with time budgets, explicit validation checkpoints (runtime evidence in step 5, mandatory end review in step 6), an escalation valve after two failed hypotheses, and re-review/re-validation feedback loops for high-risk changes. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with no nested references and no bundle files to mismanage; sits just above the simple-skill line, so a couple of dense inline sections keep it from a perfect score. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |