Content
22%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is lean and well-sectioned but almost entirely generic boilerplate that adds no competitive-analysis-specific value, and its single detailed reference points to a file that is not present.
Suggestions
Replace the generic instruction bullets with concrete competitive-analysis guidance: the actual frameworks (e.g. Porter's Five Forces steps), a positioning/differentiation template, and a worked example.
Create the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or point the reference at an existing file) so the detailed-materials link is not dangling, and reference it from only one section.
Add a sequenced workflow with explicit validation (e.g. gather competitor data -> apply framework -> cross-check positioning claims -> verify differentiation against evidence).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and avoids over-explaining known concepts, but the generic instruction bullets ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices") are low-value filler that do not earn their place. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Despite claiming "Comprehensive frameworks", the body gives no concrete framework, template, command, or example; instructions like "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes" are abstract and describe rather than instruct. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Instructions bullets are generic boilerplate with no real sequenced workflow for competitive analysis and no concrete validation checkpoints, only a vague "validate outcomes" mention. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are reasonably organized, but the only referenced file (`resources/implementation-playbook.md`) does not exist in the bundle and is referenced redundantly in both Instructions and Resources, so navigation is broken. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |