Content
96%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 model of lean, high-actionability instruction: concrete commands, explicit pass/fail gates, and a regeneration feedback loop, with no padding or redundant explanation. The only weakness is mild — dense project-specific evidence inlined in the body with no signal for where extended detail lives.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative throughout — "Must print VERDICT: PASS", "If numpy/scipy changed the hash, regenerate with verify.py --generate-hash then re-verify" — with no filler and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token carries project-specific information. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is copy-paste ready: "ruview_verify runs archive/v1/data/proof/verify.py", "bash scripts/generate-witness-bundle.sh", "cd dist/witness-bundle-ADR028-*/ && bash VERIFY.sh", and "ruview_claim_check {text}" are all concrete, executable commands with expected outcomes stated. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each procedure has an explicit validation checkpoint ("Must print VERDICT: PASS", "must be 7/7 PASS") plus a real error-recovery feedback loop (regenerate the hash then re-verify), and the firmware section states a hard release gate — matching the anchor for clear sequencing with explicit validation and feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Four well-organized sections keep the ~40-line body navigable and appropriately short, but it inlines dense evidence detail (the ADR-028 manifest contents, the esp32 boot-log example) and references project-internal paths with no pointer to where a reader could go deeper — a minor organization gap rather than the clean split of a level-5 layout. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |