Content
62%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 workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with explicit validation and blocking checkpoints, and references are cleanly signaled one level deep. The main weakness is verbosity, with repeated prose around compression modes and handoff internals that assumes too little of Claude.
Suggestions
Trim the repeated prose explaining handoff-file roles and idempotency; keep the command blocks and one-line rationale per step.
Move the detailed default-vs-beta handoff file descriptions into a referenced doc, leaving the body with just the trigger condition and command for each mode.
Collapse the duplicated Design Doc frontmatter blocks (Steps 1b and 2) into a single referenced snippet to reduce token weight.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is noticeably verbose: long prose explanations of idempotency, context-compression modes, and rehashing of handoff file roles repeat information and pad each step rather than assuming Claude's competence. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands (node "$COMET_STATE" check, node "$COMET_HANDOFF" ... --write, node "$COMET_GUARD" ... --apply) and explicit file paths cover the workflow with only minor gaps around argument substitution. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0 through 3 are clearly sequenced with an explicit blocking user-confirmation checkpoint (1c), validation via the phase guard with --apply, and a feedback loop for handoff regeneration when the delta spec changes. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: the body stays an overview and signals one-level-deep references (comet/reference/scripts.md, context-recovery.md, decision-point.md, auto-transition.md) clearly, though some inline handoff-file detail could itself live in a reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |