Content
40%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 provides a usable output template anchored by a concrete Mermaid C4Component example, but it functions as a fill-in-the-blanks form rather than guidance: no synthesis workflow, no validation steps, and a dangling reference to a nonexistent playbook. Stray four-backtick fences also break the markdown structure around the diagram and index-template sections.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered workflow for synthesizing c4-code-*.md files into components (read inputs, group by responsibility, define interfaces, draft diagram, self-validate against the Key Principles), with a validation checkpoint before finalizing.
Fix or remove the broken "resources/implementation-playbook.md" reference — either ship the file (in a real bundle directory) or inline the concrete synthesis criteria it was meant to hold.
Delete the generic filler in Instructions/Output Examples and repair the stray ```` fence artifacts so the Mermaid and master-index code blocks render correctly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a mostly lean template with no re-explanation of C4 fundamentals, but generic filler ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") and platitudinous output bullets ("Clear component boundaries with rationale") dilute it. Not 4 because several sections restate what any competent model already knows or could infer from the template itself. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The Mermaid C4Component example is concrete and the fillable template gives a clear output shape, but there is no methodology for how to group code-level files into logical components, and the pointer "open resources/implementation-playbook.md" references a file that does not exist in the bundle. Not 4 because the one concrete example is undermined by the missing playbook and absent synthesis criteria; not 2 because the Mermaid syntax and template structure are genuinely usable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "Instructions" are unordered generic bullets; there is no sequence from c4-code-*.md inputs to finished component documentation and no validation checkpoints. Not 3 because there is not even an implicit step list whose checkpoints could be missing; not 1 because the template sections impose a rough implicit order on the output. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body's only external reference, "open resources/implementation-playbook.md", is broken — no resources/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist in the bundle — and it is weakly signaled ("If detailed examples are required"). Not 3 because the single reference present points to a nonexistent file rather than being merely unclear, leaving no working progressive-disclosure layer at all. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |