Content
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a verbose catalog of generic code-analysis concepts with little executable guidance beyond orchestration scaffolding, and it lacks validation checkpoints or any progressive file structure. It explains what Claude already knows rather than encoding a tight, actionable workflow.
Suggestions
Cut the generic capability lists and metric definitions Claude already knows; keep only the concrete workflow steps and any project-specific thresholds.
Replace abstract directives like 'Run linters and type checkers' with specific, copy-paste-ready commands and expected outputs.
Add explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verify scan completed, re-run on failure) and fix the '$' templating artifacts in paths like 'analysis$code-quality' and 'UserController$search'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is padded with capabilities Claude already knows (cyclomatic complexity, Big O analysis, coupling/cohesion, code duplication) and long generic bullet enumerations that add no novel information. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The only executable commands are claude-flow orchestration hooks ('npx claude-flow@alpha hooks pre-search ...'), while the actual analysis steps ('Run linters', 'Execute security scanners') are described abstractly without specific commands. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Three phases are sequenced, but Phase 2 is generic and there are no validation/verification checkpoints or feedback loops for the batch analysis work, which caps clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | It is a monolithic single-file wall of text with no bundle files and no references to separate materials; metrics tables, the example report, and memory keys that could be split out are all inline. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |