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 concise and well-structured with actionable heuristics and a usable output template. It loses a little on actionability and workflow clarity because it is advisory/checklist-driven rather than executable-code-driven with explicit validation loops.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete executable commands (e.g., a lint/typecheck or dependency-direction check command) to lift actionability toward fully executable guidance.
Include an explicit validation/feedback checkpoint in the review workflow (e.g., 're-check dependencies after proposed placement') to make the workflow loop explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or over-explanation of basic concepts; the compact ASCII layer tree and bullet heuristics assume Claude's competence and every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete heuristics (layer placement rules), specific paths ('application/ports/output/'), and a copy-paste output template, but is guidance-driven with no executable commands — minor gaps versus fully executable code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Q&A review sequence and an output template with an explicit checklist provide most checkpoints, though an explicit validate/feedback loop for review findings is only implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-organized single-file overview under 50 lines with clear sections and no nested references; no bundle files are needed, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |