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.
A tight, well-structured contract document that respects the token budget and gives mostly executable guidance. The two weaker spots are the absence of a worked example of a completed test skeleton and the prose-form route-parity review procedure, which lacks explicit sequencing.
Suggestions
Add one short filled-in example of an annotated test skeleton (e.g., a sample integration test with AC/Behavior/@lane/@dependency/Selection evidence completed) to bridge the template and real usage.
Rewrite the route-parity review as an explicit numbered sequence with a checkpoint for when a difference becomes a proof obligation and how to resolve it (reuse existing proof vs. add new test).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean contract spec — lanes table, annotation template, naming globs, and a compact route-parity rule — with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The annotation block, lane table, and file-naming globs are concrete and directly usable, but there is no filled-in worked example of an annotated test skeleton, leaving a minor gap between template and practice. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Skeleton generation is unambiguous (annotations, lane declaration, naming), and route parity gives a discernible procedure ('compare validation, classification, resource bounds… reuse existing proof or add the smallest test'), but the review steps are prose rather than an explicit sequence with checkpoints. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, the body is organized into clear sections (Test Lanes, Test Skeleton Specification, File Naming, Route Parity) that make navigation trivial — meets the simple-skill bar for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |