Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and cleanly sectioned with a clear three-step sequence, but it leans on unbundled reference files for the actual templates, omits any SVG-validity verification step, and points to reference.md and examples.md that are not present. Bundling the referenced files and adding a validation checkpoint would address the weakest dimensions.
Suggestions
Bundle the referenced reference.md and examples.md files (or inline the SVG/markdown templates) so the offloaded content actually exists.
Name the specific placeholders to replace and add a validation step that confirms the written SVG is self-contained and well-formed before finishing.
Trim the minor redundancy where reference.md is linked in both Instructions and Additional resources.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-structured with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place, fitting the 'lean and efficient' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete output paths and steps but defers the actual SVG/markdown templates and placeholder names to reference.md, which is not bundled, leaving the executable guidance incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The three steps are clearly sequenced, but the rule that 'The SVG must be self-contained and valid' has no corresponding verification checkpoint, leaving validation implicit rather than explicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and references are clearly signaled one level deep, but the referenced files (reference.md, examples.md) do not exist in the bundle, so the navigation promised by the overview does not actually resolve. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |