Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body provides concrete, actionable macOS SwiftUI refactoring guidance with a clear sequenced workflow and a compile-checkpoint feedback loop. Its weaknesses are mild redundancy across four parallel restatement sections and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure to reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the overlapping Core Guidelines, Workflow, Refactor Checklist, and Common Smells sections so each idea (split files, stabilize layout, narrow AppKit, extract subviews) appears once, reducing token cost.
Move the detailed directory-layout and file-shape rules (section 2b) into a reference file (e.g. references/file-layout.md) and link to it from the body, adding one-level-deep progressive disclosure.
Add a brief explicit validation note in the Workflow itself (e.g. "Build after each split; only proceed on a clean build") rather than leaving the feedback loop only in the checklist.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is non-fluffy and never explains basic SwiftUI concepts, but four parallel sections (Core Guidelines, Workflow, Refactor Checklist, Common Smells) restate the same handful of ideas (split files, stabilize layout, narrow AppKit, extract subviews), so it could be tightened; not 1 because nothing pads known concepts, not 3 because of the cross-section overlap. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable structural guidance — a specific property/file ordering, directory layout (App/<AppName>App.swift, Views/, Models/, Stores/, Services/, Support/), and a ~50-line threshold — rather than abstract direction; not 2 because details are complete and specific. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step Workflow is clearly sequenced and the checklist's "Build after each major split so compile errors stay local" plus "Keep behavior intact unless the request explicitly asks" provide an explicit validation checkpoint and safety guardrail; not 2 because a feedback loop is present. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is well organized into clear sections but is a single ~107-line monolith with no external references, and detailed guidance like the directory layout (section 2b) is inline content that could be split out; not 1 because it is not a wall of text, not 3 because there are no well-signaled one-level-deep references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |