Content
75%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 well-structured, lean, and gives concrete, actionable research guidance with clear example prompts and workflows. Its main limitation is that the workflow steps depend on a human browsing a website, and validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and does not explain concepts Claude already knows; the only minor excess is mild redundancy between the intro, 'Capabilities', and 'When to Use' sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete capture fields (core promise, input/output shape, autonomy model, deployment model) and copy-paste-ready example prompts give actionable guidance; the gap is that the core steps are browser-bound and not directly executable by Claude. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence (Open → Search → Evaluate → Synthesize) with a stop-and-ask guardrail in Limitations; checkpoints are implicit rather than fully explicit, so it stops just short of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized file with clear section headers and no nested references; no bundle files exist to reference, so structure is appropriate but the longer example sections could theoretically be split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |