Content
72%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 with executable examples and excellent progressive disclosure to real reference files. The main weakness is the absence of explicit validation/feedback loops in the refactor workflow for destructive code transformations.
Suggestions
Add a validation checkpoint to Refactor mode (e.g., run `go build ./...` and `golangci-lint run` after consolidating findings, then iterate on failures before finalizing the migration plan).
Tighten redundancy between the 'Why DI?' table and the 'Best Practices Summary', which restate overlapping rationale.
Define or inline the helper types referenced in code examples (UserStore, OrderService) so snippets are fully copy-paste runnable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's Go knowledge without explaining DI or library basics, but the 'Why DI?' table and four-way quick comparison partially restate concepts in the Best Practices Summary and could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable Go code for manual wiring, mocking, and samber/do override plus a concrete decision table, though some examples reference types (UserStore, OrderService) not defined inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Design and Refactor modes are sequenced with sub-agent roles, but the destructive refactor operations lack explicit validation checkpoints or validate→fix→retry feedback loops, capping this dimension. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview body with well-signaled one-level-deep references to four real bundle files (manual-di.md, google-wire.md, uber-dig-fx.md, samber-do.md) plus external doc links, all verified present. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |