Content
93%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 lean, highly actionable, and well-structured with appropriately signaled one-level-deep references and embedded validation steps. Workflow clarity could be tightened slightly with an explicit numbered checklist for the completion sequence.
Suggestions
Render the Completion section as a short numbered checklist (run affected → ruff check → ruff format --check → collection check) with an explicit "if a check fails, fix and re-run" feedback loop.
Consider noting when to re-run the full suite vs. affected cases in a single explicit rule to remove the mild ambiguity in the closing paragraph.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body assumes Claude knows pytest/uv/xdist and contains no concept padding; every line (wrapper defaults, marker location, binary-vs-collection note) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready commands (./scripts/run-e2e.sh …, uv run --group dev ruff check/format) cover the common single-file, serial, parallel, collection, and full-suite cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear run → choose-detail → completion sequence with explicit validation (ruff check, ruff format --check, collection check) is present, but the steps are prose rather than a numbered checklist with explicit feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that points to real one-level-deep references (references/authoring.md, references/troubleshooting.md), each clearly signaled by the condition that triggers reading it. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |