Content
68%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 highly actionable, well-structured reference with concrete scales, formulas, worked examples, and a properly delegated bundle reference. Its weaknesses are the convoluted, repetitive ROI unknown-handling prose and the lack of an explicitly sequenced design/review workflow — the process must be inferred from topic organization.
Suggestions
Consolidate the three paragraphs on unknown-value handling (value-input round, not_decision_relevant, and evidence ordering) into a single decision table or short rule list — they currently repeat the same unknown-handling rules in dense prose.
Add a brief numbered overview of the design/review workflow (enumerate candidates → classify lane → compute ROI and rank → apply budgets → emit skeleton → review) so the process doesn't have to be assembled from topic order.
Consider moving the full ROI worked-example table or the EARS mapping into references/e2e-design.md to slim the main file, keeping only the scale definitions and formula inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The table-heavy body is mostly lean, but the ROI unknown-handling prose ("When ROI can change candidate ranking, a lane threshold, or budget selection, return the exact missing product input...") is convoluted and repeats the unknown-handling rules across three paragraphs — more than minor tightening needed, so not 4; the majority of content is efficient, so not 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete throughout: exact 0/5/10 scales with definitions, the ROI formula, lane thresholds, an 8-scenario worked-example table, a copy-paste annotation block, naming conventions, and failure-condition tables — everything needed to execute the design and review task. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The design process (lane selection → ROI ranking → skeleton spec → review) is implicit in topic order rather than explicitly sequenced; decision gates and the single input round exist but the reader must assemble the workflow from sections, and checkpoints are not consolidated as an ordered procedure. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled, verified one-level-deep reference (references/e2e-design.md) that appropriately carries browser-harness details; minor gap in that some inline material (e.g., the full ROI worked-example table) could live in a reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |