Content
75%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 dense, well-structured, actionable body that teaches Repowise-specific tool and field semantics Claude would not otherwise know, with a clear review workflow and error-handling loop. The recurring gap is mild: a touch of editorial padding and a few inline field glossaries that, at this length, would benefit from being split into a one-level-deep reference file.
Suggestions
Trim editorial asides such as 'It is honest about gaps' and 'so say so rather than presenting it as proof' — the surrounding instruction already implies this — to push conciseness toward the 5-anchor.
Move the directive-block field glossary (will_break / missing_cochanges / missing_tests / tests_to_run_basis) into a references/ file and link to it one level deep, keeping the body a lean overview to lift progressive_disclosure.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint before the 'Write the review' step (e.g. 'confirm every will_break item was checked') to give the workflow a hard gate and reach the 5-anchor for workflow_clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and information-dense — the Repowise-specific field semantics and tool semantics are non-obvious content Claude does not already know — with only minor editorial padding (e.g. 'It is honest about gaps'). It sits above the 3-anchor but stops short of the every-token-earns-its-place 5-anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly executable calls and CLI commands (get_change_risk(revspec=...), gh pr diff <number>, repowise risk main..HEAD) with parameterized examples; the <changed files> placeholders keep it just short of copy-paste-ready 5-anchor coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced flow (score the whole change → drill into the directive block → go deeper → get the diff → write the review → error handling) with an explicit error-handling feedback loop, meeting the 4-anchor; it lacks a hard validation gate before publishing the review, so it does not reach the 5-anchor checklist bar. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly labeled sections with no nested or buried references, and no bundle files exist to mis-route; because the body exceeds ~50 lines and inlines several field-by-field explanations that could live in a reference file, it stops at the 4-anchor rather than the 5-anchor clean-overview-with-one-level-references bar. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |