Content
72%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 a well-organized, lean overview with concrete audit/fix guidance and a cleanly signaled single reference file one level deep. Its main weakness is workflow sequencing: steps are implicit and lack explicit validation checkpoints in the body itself.
Suggestions
Number the Check → Fix → Verify → Review steps explicitly and add a 'validate the file returns HTTP 200 after changes' checkpoint.
Inline one quick verification command (e.g. `curl -I "$ORIGIN/robots.txt"`) so the body is self-contained for the common case.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with bulleted Quick Reference and short Check/Fix/Explain sections that assume Claude's knowledge; the one background line is brief and justified as motivation rather than padding. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable guidance — serve robots.txt at /robots.txt returning HTTP 200, include a Sitemap: directive, remove Disallow: / rules — with specific syntax and verification steps; minor gap is no inline curl command. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An implicit Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence exists with verification described in Check, but the body lacks explicit numbered steps and validation checkpoints for this audit-style task. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md) that exists as a real file and is clearly signaled at the end, giving easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |