Content
86%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 lean, well-sequenced, and action-oriented with a concrete verification command and a destructive-operation rejection gate. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit error-recovery loop after verification, which keeps workflow clarity at 4.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after step 3, e.g. 'If verify fails, read the report, fix the bounds/signatures/host-capabilities issue, and re-run before proceeding.'
Pin where the 'documented development override' lives (file/section) so step 4 is fully actionable instead of referencing an unlocated document.
Optionally show the expected pass/fail output of `homecore verify` so Claude can recognize a clean result.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Five terse, well-chosen steps with no concept padding and no over-explanation; every line earns its place and assumes Claude's competence, matching the 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides an executable command (homecore verify --profile wasm --repo <checkout>) and concrete review targets, but some steps are directives rather than runnable commands and a few details (e.g. where the development override is documented) are unresolved, fitting the 4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence with an explicit verification checkpoint (step 3), but it lacks an explicit error-recovery/feedback loop ('if verify fails, do X'), so it sits at 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references and no bundle files present; the simple-skill exception applies and the single numbered list is well-organized, matching the 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |