Content
81%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 an exceptionally rigorous, actionable methodology with a well-sequenced 14-step process, embedded validation checkpoints, and correctly-signaled one-level-deep references. Its main weakness is redundancy: core rules are restated nearly verbatim in the step rules and anti-patterns sections, and a few dense run-on paragraphs (notably Engineering Gates G) could be tightened or moved to a reference file.
Suggestions
Cut the anti-patterns section down to genuinely new failure modes (or convert it to a cross-reference table pointing back to the core/step rules) — at least 10 of its 15 bullets restate rules already stated verbatim in Core rules, Reproducibility rules, or Step rules.
Break the single-paragraph Engineering Gates G bullet into a short definition plus a small table (gate / verdict rules / evidence required), moving the probe-before-not-run and pre-existing-failure carve-out detail into that structure.
Consider moving the 10-category Elicitation rubric table into references/reference.md alongside the report template and calibration anchors, keeping only the E_recall/E_precision/E_justified formulas and a pointer in SKILL.md — it is applied once per evaluation (Step 5) rather than continuously.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | There is no filler — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but the same rules are restated across four sections: e.g. read-only evaluation appears in Core rule 5, Step 11, and the anti-patterns; 'compute, don't calculate' in Reproducibility rule 4, Step 13, and anti-patterns; search-before-zero in Core rule 2, Step 8, and anti-patterns. This fits 'Mostly efficient but... could be tightened' rather than 4, since the ~15-bullet anti-patterns section largely duplicates rules already stated verbatim, and the Engineering Gates paragraph is a single ~350-word run-on that could be condensed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: exact git commands for the diff surface, exact formulas (I, T, AC_score, Story_score, Final), pinned weights tables, a mandated compute mechanism ('executed by a script (e.g. node -e / python3 -c)... with the script's output pasted into the report'), and a precise report filename format with the timestamp command (date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ). It matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands' — the only unpasted artifact (the roll-up script) is deliberately parameterized per benchmark, which is a justified flexibility. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 14-step process checklist is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: search-before-zero for UNMET checks, probe-before-not-run for gates, the k=3 majority-vote disagreement handling, and the calibration loop ('If verdicts disagree on more than ~20% of checks... sharpen the ambiguous checks... and re-run'). This matches the anchor 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are real (references/quickstart.md and references/reference.md both exist), one level deep (reference.md points to no further bundled .md files), and well-signaled with purpose statements ('Read it when you need the operational how-to; the rest of this file is the scoring methodology'; reference.md holds 'worked checklist anchors... report template... worked example'). However, the ~330-line body retains the full scoring model plus the entire 10-category Elicitation rubric inline, so it is more than an overview — 'Good structure; most content is appropriately placed... minor organization gaps' fits better than the 5 anchor's 'content appropriately split'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |