Content
81%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced orchestration workflow with explicit validation gates, feedback loops, and copy-paste agent prompts. Its only notable weakness is redundancy: the completion/approval scope and out-of-scope statements are each repeated multiple times.
Suggestions
State the user-approval completion gate once (e.g., in the Execution Protocol) and remove the duplicate 'Responsibility Boundary' and Step 6 restatements.
Drop the duplicated 'document creation is out of scope' row from the Error Handling table since it already appears in the Step 1 decision table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is procedural with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats the user-approval completion gate three times (Execution Protocol scope, Responsibility Boundary, Step 6) and restates 'document creation is out of scope' in both Step 1 and the Error Handling table, so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste subagent prompt blocks with declared mechanical-extraction placeholders, exact path patterns, per-type reviewer shapes, decision tables for type/layer selection, and an error-handling table with a retry rule. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-6 are explicitly sequenced with evidence-based advancement, validation checkpoints at every branch (code-verifier, document-reviewer, design-sync), a feedback loop back to Step 4 via the Review Resolution Gate, and a completion checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-structured with clear section headers, tables, and prompt blocks; no bundle files exist so nothing is withheld, but the ~200-line orchestration body is not the lean overview-plus-references shape of the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |