Content
70%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.
The content excels at workflow clarity with explicit checkpoints, feedback loops, and a concrete example, and is largely actionable. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity in the Advantages/Red Flags sections and broken references to missing prompt-template bundle files.
Suggestions
Add the three referenced prompt-template files (implementer-prompt.md, spec-reviewer-prompt.md, code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md) to a bundle directory so the signaled references resolve.
Trim the Advantages section, which restates the core principle and process steps already covered above.
Condense the Red Flags list by merging near-duplicate entries (e.g. the repeated review-loop guidance).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the Advantages and Red Flags sections restate points from the process and the example workflow is lengthy, so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance abounds — explicit resume instructions ("resume: <agent-id>"), a full dialogue example, and named prompt templates — but the executable prompt templates themselves live in external files rather than inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Two dot graphs sequence the full process with explicit validation checkpoints (spec review then quality review) and feedback loops ("Repeat until approved", "Don't skip the re-review"), plus a Red Flags checklist for error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well sectioned and the three prompt-template references are clearly signaled one level deep, but the referenced files (implementer-prompt.md, spec-reviewer-prompt.md, code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md) do not exist in any bundle directory, breaking navigation. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |