Content
88%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 body is an actionable, well-sequenced orchestration procedure with concrete commands, quoted sub-agent briefs, and explicit validation checkpoints. Its main inefficiency is the brief re-explanation of well-known code smells, which costs tokens without adding capability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The process steps are lean and command-first, but the 12-item smell baseline re-explains Fowler smells Claude already knows (e.g., 'Feature Envy — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own'), which could be trimmed to names alone even though inlining it for the sub-agent is justified. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: exact git commands with the three-dot rationale, verbatim copy-paste-ready sub-agent briefs with word limits, and a concrete output format (## Standards / ## Spec headings). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence with an explicit pre-flight validation checkpoint ('confirm the fixed point resolves... a bad ref or empty diff should fail here'), a fallback spec-discovery order ending in asking the user, and defined error handling when the spec is missing. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the ~85-line body is well-sectioned; the inlined smell baseline is content a separate reference file could hold, but its placement is deliberately justified for pasting into the sub-agent prompt, leaving only minor organization tension. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |