Content
100%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.
An exemplary operational runbook: every step is executable, ordered, and guarded against realistic failure modes (port collisions from other worktrees, stale Studio instances, wrong browser-opening behavior). It is maximally lean for its scope and requires no bundle files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 28-line runbook contains zero conceptual padding; the sole rationale ("Another worktree may already be using that port, and probing it first can open the wrong Studio") is non-obvious operational context that earns its place. Nothing can be trimmed without losing a distinct failure-mode guard, so it is lean rather than merely efficient. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully copy-paste ready: `bun i && bun run build`, `cd packages/example && bunx remotion studio --no-open`, plus explicit tool-selection rules ("Use `bunx`, not `npx`", "Always pass `--no-open`") and concrete curl/tool_search follow-ups. No vague or abstract steps. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence with an explicit contingency branch ("If the CLI says Studio is already running, use the exact URL printed by that CLI invocation"), a source-of-truth rule ("the CLI output is the source of truth"), and verification via curl only after the URL is identified. Not a destructive or batch operation, so the validation cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-task, no external references needed, and no references/ scripts/ or assets/ bundle exists to link. The Overview and Workflow sections are well organized, which satisfies the rubric's simple-skill exception for a full score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 20 / 20 Passed |