Content
60%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 well-structured collection of decision criteria with one properly signaled bundle reference, and its strongest workflow (Impact Analysis) is clearly sequenced with an explicit gate. However, it relies heavily on abstract policy prose and pseudocode rather than executable examples, restates duplication guidance across multiple sections, and explains familiar concepts (SRP, DRY, YAGNI) that cost tokens without adding information.
Suggestions
Replace the pseudocode error-handling block with one real, executable language-specific example (e.g., Go/Python error wrapping), since the rubric penalizes pseudocode unless flexibility is explicitly justified beyond the one-line 'Adaptation' note.
Consolidate the three separate duplication/commonalization discussions (Technical Anti-patterns, Criteria for Code Duplication, Timing of Abstraction) into a single section and remove explanations of SRP, DRY, and YAGNI that Claude already knows.
Add an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop to the Quality Check Workflow (e.g., 'if a check fails, fix the issue and re-run that check before proceeding') to match the checkpoint quality already present in the Impact Analysis section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly novel project policy, but it explains concepts Claude already knows ("Violates Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)", "Violates DRY principle", "Be conscious of YAGNI", "Identify root cause with 5 Whys") and duplicates guidance across sections (duplication criteria appear in "Technical Anti-patterns", "Criteria for Code Duplication", and "Situations Requiring Technical Decisions"). Long multi-clause sentences like "Treat behavior-preserving maintenance inside the assigned responsibility as current maintainer value when repository evidence shows..." could be tightened considerably. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete artifacts exist (the Impact Analysis report template, the "Required by the requested change? No → Preserve" decision tree, the numbered "Before Implementing Any Fallback" checklist), but the only code example is pseudocode ("AVOID: Silent fallback that hides errors / <handle error>: return DEFAULT_VALUE") and no section gives an executable command or worked example. This matches the anchor for some concrete guidance with pseudocode instead of executable code and missing key details. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Impact Analysis section gives a clearly sequenced 3-stage process ("1. Discovery", "2. Understanding", "3. Identification") with an explicit proceed gate ("Proceed when discovery and understanding cover the accepted outcome..."), and the quality workflow states "Completion requires every applicable configured check to pass". It falls short of 5 because no workflow includes an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop, and the Quality Check Workflow defers command selection to discovery rather than specifying steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: clear section headers throughout, and a single well-signaled one-level-deep reference ("[references/frontend.md](references/frontend.md): read when implementing, reviewing, fixing, or diagnosing frontend code") that exists in the bundle and adds complementary React/TypeScript criteria. Not 5 because the main file is a ~250-line full criteria set rather than a lean overview, and content like the Fail-Fast Fallback design section is dense enough that further splitting could aid navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |