Content
81%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 a well-structured, actionable workflow with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops appropriate to a destructive archive operation, with only minor conciseness and content-splitting improvements available.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean procedural content with executable bash blocks and no padding about concepts Claude already knows; minor repetition between the Step 2 numbered list and the follow-on merge-semantics prose could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable bash commands (entry verification, archive script, state transitions) with a specific single-select decision protocol; placeholders like <change-name> require substitution but are otherwise copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced steps (0-3) with explicit validation checkpoints (entry verification, blocking confirmation, exit conditions, exit-code check) and feedback loops (non-zero exit stops; 'Needs adjustment' transitions back to /comet-verify), satisfying the destructive-operation validation requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (comet/reference/decision-point.md, comet/reference/context-recovery.md); no bundle files exist under ./references to verify, and a fair amount of process detail is inlined rather than split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |