Content
35%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-sectioned and brief, but it offers only generic, non-executable guidance, lacks validation checkpoints for a risky migration workflow, and depends on a referenced resource file that is missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Replace the generic Instruction bullets with concrete, executable steps (e.g. specific diff/transform commands or a runnable migration script snippet).
Add explicit validation/feedback-loop checkpoints (validate -> fix -> re-run) around the risky phases of the migration workflow.
Either create resources/implementation-playbook.md or remove the dangling reference, since the file does not exist in the bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short, but the opening paragraph restates the description verbatim, the Context section rephrases what the description already said, and the Instructions are generic boilerplate ("Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The Instructions are abstract directions ("Clarify goals, constraints", "Provide actionable steps and verification") with no executable code or commands, and the only concrete pointer (resources/implementation-playbook.md) points to a file that does not exist in the bundle. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Output Format lists a phased sequence (analysis, risk, plan, testing, rollback), but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops; since migration is a destructive/batch operation, workflow clarity is capped at 2 per the rubric notes. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are clearly organized and the reference to resources/implementation-playbook.md is signaled one level deep, but the referenced file is absent from the bundle, so the disclosure is structurally present yet broken. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |