Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced body held back by progressive-disclosure defects (broken and orphaned file references plus inline duplication of the reference file) and missing validation feedback loops around destructive remediation steps.
Suggestions
Fix cross-file navigation: create or remove the referenced SERVICES.md and EXAMPLES.md, and link the existing references/drift-remediation.md from Phase 4 instead of duplicating its import/revert content inline.
Add an explicit validation feedback loop to Phase 4 — e.g. after each destructive step, re-run 'snyk iac describe --json' and confirm the finding is gone before proceeding — to lift workflow clarity past the destructive-operations cap.
Remove the hardcoded 'Scan Date: 2024-01-15' from the example report template and de-duplicate remediation detail against references/drift-remediation.md to tighten the body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is action-oriented without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but Phase 4 (Remediation) duplicates import/revert patterns that also live in references/drift-remediation.md, and the report template hardcodes a stale 'Scan Date: 2024-01-15' — mostly efficient but could be tightened, so it sits at 2 rather than the lean 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Dense copy-paste-ready commands throughout — 'snyk iac describe --from=tfstate://terraform.tfstate', 'aws sts get-caller-identity', 'terraform import aws_s3_bucket.manual_bucket prod-logs-manual' — matching the 'fully executable code/commands; copy-paste ready' anchor rather than the incomplete/pseudocode anchor at 2. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Five phases are clearly sequenced, but Phase 4 performs destructive operations ('aws s3 rb s3://unauthorized-bucket --force', 'aws ec2 terminate-instances', 'terraform apply') with no explicit validation checkpoint or validate-fix-retry feedback loop in the body — only a vague 'After verification' — so per the rubric's destructive-operations rule workflow clarity is capped at 2 rather than reaching 3. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has clear section structure, but it references 'SERVICES.md' and 'EXAMPLES.md' that do not exist in the bundle, while the actual bundle file 'references/drift-remediation.md' is never referenced from the body, and remediation detail that belongs in that reference is duplicated inline in Phase 4 — 'references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline' fits 2 better than the monolithic/deeply-nested 1 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |