Content
86%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 content is well-structured, actionable, and respects progressive disclosure by keeping the workflow inline and the principle catalog in referenced files. The main improvement room is adding explicit validation/feedback loops and trimming minor stylistic framing.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in Phase 2/3 (e.g. confirm the diff is non-trivial and commit messages were actually read before moving to analysis) to strengthen workflow_clarity toward a 5.
Trim stylistic framing like 'Not a lecture -- a mirror. Show the user what their code already demonstrates.' to tighten conciseness.
Consider briefly noting what the two reference files contain at the point they are cited, so navigation intent is even clearer.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence (no padding about what git or SE principles are), with only minor stylistic framing ('Not a lecture -- a mirror') that could be trimmed, placing it just below the lean anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready git commands (e.g. 'git log main..HEAD --oneline'), a concrete scope-selection table, and a complete output template, covering the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 1-4 are clearly sequenced with conditional handling (large diffs use --stat first), but there are no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loops; since the operations are read-only the destructive cap does not apply, so it sits at 'clear sequence, minor validation gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview that offloads the principle catalog to clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (references/se-principles.md, references/anti-patterns.md), both of which exist as real files. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |