Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a highly actionable, clearly sequenced orchestration recipe with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops. Its main weaknesses are a duplicated exclusion-pattern rule and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure to bundle files.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the restricted exclusion-pattern list by defining it once and referencing it from both Work Plan Resolution and the Consumed Task Set section.
Consider offloading the detailed file-pattern rules and/or Completion Report Contract into a references/ file referenced from the body to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and procedural without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the restricted exclusion-pattern list ("*-task-prep-*.md", "_overview-*.md", etc.) is duplicated verbatim in Work Plan Resolution step 2 and Consumed Task Set step 2 and could be tightened into a single referenced rule. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable: exact subagent_type values ("dev-workflows-frontend:task-executor-frontend"), precise file patterns, and specific status fields ("escalation_needed", "stub_detected", "approved") with matching branches. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is explicitly sequenced (Pre-execution → Decomposition → Checklist → 4-Step Cycle → Post-Implementation Verification → Final Cleanup → Report) with validation checkpoints and feedback loops (stub_detected → return to step 2, quality-fixer approval before commit, re-run verifiers until pass). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the ~155-line body is a single monolithic file; it is well-sectioned but detailed material like the exclusion-pattern rules and Completion Report Contract is inline rather than offloaded to references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |