Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured principles document that efficiently communicates coding standards and workflow expectations. Its strengths are conciseness and clear organization with appropriate references. The main weakness is the lack of concrete, executable examples - the guidance is directive but abstract, which limits immediate actionability for specific implementation scenarios.
Suggestions
Add a concrete code example demonstrating self-documenting code vs. over-commented code to illustrate the commenting principles
Include a specific example of the 'Stop and ask' workflow showing a decision tree or scenario walkthrough
Add executable examples for output formatting showing proper color library usage vs. hardcoded ANSI codes
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, using bullet points with brief explanations. It assumes Claude's competence and doesn't explain basic concepts like what comments are or how Git works. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear directives and specific guidance (e.g., what to look for in workflow detection, when to stop and ask), but lacks concrete code examples or executable commands. The guidance is specific but descriptive rather than demonstrative. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Stop and ask' section provides clear decision points, and workflow detection has specific items to check. However, there's no explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for multi-step development tasks. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear headings and scannable structure. References to detailed guidance files are clearly signaled at the end with one-level-deep links to specific topics. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |