Content
71%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 well-structured and actionable, with concrete commands, a dispatch template, and clear feedback triage. Its main weakness is a broken reference to code-reviewer.md, which is cited twice but missing from the bundle, and some repetition between the "When to Request" and "Integration" sections.
Suggestions
Add the missing code-reviewer.md file to the bundle (or a references/ dir) so the cited template is reachable.
Merge the "Integration with Workflows" section into "When to Request Review" to remove the duplicated review-cadence guidance.
Add an explicit re-review checkpoint (e.g. "after fixing Critical/Important issues, re-dispatch the reviewer before proceeding") to close the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete commands and tight sections, though the "Integration with Workflows" section repeats the "review after each task" guidance already in "When to Request Review" and the example dialogue could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides executable bash (`git rev-parse HEAD~1`), a concrete dispatch template with named placeholders, and a clear Critical/Important/Minor triage; the main gap is that the referenced template file code-reviewer.md does not exist in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The get-SHAs → dispatch → act-on-feedback sequence is clear with prioritized checkpoints and an implicit fix-then-continue loop, only missing an explicit re-review checkpoint after fixes. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the code-reviewer.md reference is clearly signaled with a markdown link, but the referenced file is absent from the bundle, so navigation fails at the one place detailed content is deferred. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |