Content
63%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 delivers a genuinely actionable, well-checkpointed delivery workflow — real CLI commands with flags, decision enums, and explicit failure-recovery rules — and it wisely keeps the legacy compat path in a separate gated section. Its weaknesses are structural: extremely dense run-on paragraphs that bury the rules, inlined protocol detail that belongs in reference files, and references that are either unlinked prose mentions or point at files that do not exist in the bundle.
Suggestions
Break the long rule paragraphs (especially the '优先复用同一 change…' block) into short bulleted rules, one rule per bullet, and deduplicate the repeated '首次进入阶段/换 Agent/恢复上下文时读取…' caching instructions into a single stated-once convention.
Fix progressive disclosure: make every reference an explicit link (e.g. link 'SDK 方法参考的 Archive 与 Git 交付章节' and 'decision-point.md' the way scripts.md is linked), and move the reusable protocol rules (layout binding, edit-review, caching conventions) into the referenced files instead of inlining them.
Give step 4 the same concreteness as steps 1-5 by specifying the actual git commands or exact staging scope (e.g. the paths that make up '实现、归档目录、主 spec 及 Design Doc/Plan 标注') so the archive commit is reproducible without interpretation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | There is no padding that explains known concepts — every sentence is operational — but the delivery is dense to the point of obstruction: the paragraph '优先复用同一 change、工作区和 Run 的最新有效响应…' crams roughly eight distinct rules into one run-on block, and the '首次进入阶段…读取' caching instructions are repeated across three sections. Mostly efficient but needs tightening, matching anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps 1-5 provide concrete, copy-paste-ready commands with flags and enum values ('comet state propose-archive <change-name> --summary "…" --remote <name> --pr-base <branch>', 'comet state decide-archive … --choice <local|push|pr|reverify|later>', 'comet guard <change-name> archive --apply', 'comet state complete-delivery … --commit <sha> --pr-url <url>'). Not 5 because step 4's Git work (staging, commit, PR creation) is described abstractly without exact commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The SDK path is a clearly numbered 1-5 sequence with real validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops: guard verifies authorization/branch/Verify receipt, '结果未明时不重做归档、提交、push 或 PR', '验证失败时保留原 Run 与选择，按返回的具体缺口恢复', and interrupt recovery via 'state next --json' with '--recover'. Falls short of 5 because several checkpoints defer to references that are unlinked or absent ('按 decision-point.md 展示当前提案', 'SDK 方法参考的 Archive 与 Git 交付章节') and the dense prose obscures the sequence. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent) and every referenced path — '../comet-classic/reference/scripts.md', '../comet/reference/edit-review.md', 'reference/compat.md', 'decision-point.md' — points outside the bundle where the files do not exist. Some references are properly signaled anchor links, but others are vague prose mentions ('SDK 方法参考的 Archive 与 Git 交付章节', '该参考的当前阶段章节'), and substantial protocol detail that belongs in references is inlined. Matches anchor 3: some structure, references present but not clearly or reliably signaled. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |