Content
21%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 persona/capability dump: heavily padded with concepts Claude already knows, no executable code or commands, and an abstract workflow lacking validation. Its one reference is buried and dangling, and content that should live in separate files is inlined.
Suggestions
Cut the Capabilities, Behavioral Traits, Knowledge Base, and Example Interactions lists down to a concise overview; move detail into reference files that actually exist.
Add concrete, copy-paste-ready code examples for the most common Flutter tasks (project scaffolding, a Riverpod provider, a platform channel, a widget test).
Turn the 'Response Approach' into a real workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g. run `flutter analyze`, `flutter test`, build for target platform) and fix or remove the dangling `resources/implementation-playbook.md` reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~195-line body is a padded enumeration of capabilities, behavioral traits, and a knowledge base of concepts Claude already knows (Material Design 3, Riverpod, Bloc, Clean Architecture), matching 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary ... padded sections'; it is not 1 because it lists rather than explains basic concepts, and not 3 because the bulk is unnecessary padding. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | The body contains no executable code or commands and only describes capabilities ('Widget composition patterns', 'Clean Architecture with well-defined layer separation') rather than instructing, matching 'Entirely vague or abstract; no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs'; the generic 'Instructions' and 'Response Approach' do not raise it to 2. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step 'Response Approach' is a rough sequence ('Analyze requirements', 'Recommend state management') but steps are abstract, poorly defined, and lack any validation checkpoints, matching 'Rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined; validation absent'; it is not 3 because no checkpoint or concrete step definition is present. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers provide structure, but large capability/knowledge lists that belong in separate files are inlined, and the only reference (`resources/implementation-playbook.md`) is buried in 'Instructions' and points to a non-existent file, matching 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 8 / 20 Passed |